Summary

This report provides an update of progress on the 2013-15 Grants Programme. It sets out achievements to the 31 December 2013.

Recommendations members are asked to:

1. **Note** the results of the Red Amber Green (RAG) risk rating (91% of providers green, 9% of providers amber and no providers red) and **approve** actions suggested by officers in this regard (see paragraphs 2-12).

2. **Approve** suggested contractual changes to Solace Women’s Aid’s grant agreement (specification 2.2, sexual and domestic violence: advice, counselling, outreach, drop-in and support for access to services) (see paragraphs 37-47 and 55).

3. **Approve** suggested contractual changes to St Mungo Community Housing Association’s grant agreement (specification 3.4 ESF provision for people recovering from addiction) including a £126,500 reduction to the value of the contract (see paragraph 78).

4. **Approve** suggested contractual changes to the Citizen’s Trust’s grant agreement (specification 3.1a ESF provision for disabled parents) including a £126,500 reduction to the value of the contract (see paragraph 78).

5. **Approve** retaining the balance of £185,520 (£92,760 S.48 funding and £92,760 ESF) resulting from the reductions outlined in recommendations three and four to be used to buy additional outcomes from other providers within priority three later in the programming period (see paragraph 79).

6. **Note** the change in London Funders’ financial year to bring it in line with the Grants Committee’s financial year and **approve** funding a 15 month year (see paragraph 109).

7. **Note** that the grants team will not meet the annual target of visiting each provider twice in the current financial year, but will make up the shortfall by the end of June 2014 (see paragraphs 125-127).

8. **Note** the provision of borough spread information (and limitations regarding interpretation of the data) and to contact the grants team if further action is required (see paragraphs 130-133). Grants Programme 2013/15 – Update Report

1 Introduction

1. This report covers the first nine months’ progress on the 2013-15 Grants Committee programme. It provides a summary of Q3 provider red, amber, green (RAG) risk ratings, an overview of delivery against targets under each of the four grants programme priorities, as well an update on the management and oversight of the programme. It looks forward to planned activities over the remainder of the year. In addition, it provides a summary of borough spread of benefit at Appendices 6-9.

2 RAG Risk Rating

2.1 How the RAG Is Used

2. The RAG risk rating system covers a number of elements of project delivery and has been designed to give the Grants Committee confidence that it has proper oversight of the grants awarded. It covers the following elements:

- performance (delivery against target outcomes – 60% of total score);
- quality (provider self-assessment and beneficiary satisfaction – 20% of total score);
- compliance (timeliness and accuracy of reporting, responsiveness and the proactive management of risk – 20% of total score).

3. The RAG ratings are applied in the following way:

- Green >75 points
- Amber 50-74 points
- Red \<50 points

4. The RAG ratings are used by officers to assess the intensity of scrutiny and action they are required to undertake with providers. Members are asked to note that a red RAG rating does not signify that a commission should be terminated. However, it does indicate that officers are required to make specific recommendations to members on what actions are required with the provider.

2.2 Q3 Ratings

05. The results of the RAG rating exercise carried out at the end of Q3 remain for the most part positive. The number of green ratings has increased from 28 (80%) to 32 (91%) since Q2. The number of amber ratings has decreased from seven (20%) to three (9%). No providers are red rated. Full RAG risk ratings can be found at Appendix 1.

06. Twenty-seven of the 28 projects who were rated green in Q2 remained green in Q3. These were joined on green ratings by five projects that had been rated amber in Q2 (St Mungo’s (specification 1.1), Women in Prison (specification 1.1), Sign Health (specification 2.2), The Citizens Trust (specification 3.1a), and Hopscotch Asian Women's Centre (specification 3.3)).

07. Two projects that were rated amber in Q2 remained on amber in Q3. These were; St Mungo’s (specification and 3.4) and London Training and Enterprise Network (specification 3.3). For both these projects, this is now the second consecutive month where ratings have not improved.

08. In the case of St Mungo’s, the RAG rating score has decreased from 72.78 to 54.21. Following discussions with the project manager, London Councils officers do not consider that the organisation will be in a position to meet its original targets and are recommending a reduction in contract value as a result. This in detailed fully in section 5.2 below.

09. In the case of LTEN, the dip in performance is not as marked as St Mungo’s (RAG scores have slipped from 68.77 to 62.21). Officers have been working with the provider to understand the issues and assess appropriate steps to address these. As with the previous quarter, the provider is still reporting delays with receiving DBS (criminal records) checks for employment and work placement candidates.

10. Officers are convinced that this is a genuine issue. Therefore, do not recommend a reduction in funding at this stage. However, they will be requiring the organisation to increase the frequency of reporting, from quarterly to monthly, so that they have a closer view of progress. If the situation does not improve by the end of Q4, it is likely that they will be making recommendations to reduce funding.

11. One organisation that was rated green in Q2 has dipped to amber in Q3. Paddington Development Trust (specification 3.2 (people from ethnic groups with low participation rates) – contract value £376,040). Paddington Development Trust’s RAG rating decreased from 75.65 (green) in Q2 to 69.82 (amber) in Q3. The drivers for this reduction are underperformance against target for numbers of people receiving six hours of support (67 delivered: 98 profiled) and people gaining employment on leaving provision (15 delivered: 25 profiled).

12. The provider has reported that one of its partners has not been delivering well in Brent, Harrow and Merton. As a result, it has taken the sub-contract away from the partner in question and has reallocated outputs and outcomes amongst other partners, who have made contact with local job centres, borough officers (Harrow) and community and faith groups. They expect the results of this contact to lead to an increase in referrals to the project and subsequently an increase in the

______________________________________________________________________

1 The project is focussed on gaining employment outcomes in the care sector, which often require clean criminal records. number of jobs. Officers do not recommend contractual changes at this stage, but will continue to monitor the situation.

3 Q3 Performance against Profile

13. The following sections consider performance against profile at priority level, any suggested changes to provider contracts and a forward view.

14. Performance data is presented in chart form by individual specification for each priority and aggregated at the priority level. The charts contain bars that represent profiled performance, actual performance and variance. These are supplemented with data tables that show variance against profile, the two year value of grants and the number of providers per specification.

15. Members are asked to note that the performance data represents the number of beneficiaries that have received interventions against each of the primary outcome indicators for each specification. Therefore they are counting interventions. Beneficiaries may receive support against more than one primary outcome indicator. As a result, it is possible that the number of outcome indicators reported exceeds the number of individual beneficiaries.

16. Members are also asked to note that the number of priority outcomes per specification varies from three under priority four (providing support to London's voluntary and community organisations (VCOs)) to seven under priority two (sexual and domestic violence) specification two (advice, counselling, outreach and drop-in support for access to services). Furthermore, the timing of the delivery of outcomes indicators will also vary by specification, as does the total value of grants awarded by specification.

3.1 Priority 1 (Homelessness) Performance against Profile

17. At its meeting 20 February 2013 Grants Committee agreed funding to eight organisations to deliver services that tackle homelessness. The total two-year value of commissions awarded against this specification is £5.54 million. Six commissions with a total value of £3.79 million are delivering against specification 1.1 (early intervention and prevention), one commission is delivering against each of the remaining specifications (1.2 youth homelessness (£1.46 million) and 1.3 support services to homelessness voluntary sector organisations (£0.3 million)). The following paragraphs provide high level detail regarding delivery against profile in Q2.

18. Members are asked to note that this section of the report provides aggregate performance figures against profile to date for the primary outcomes against each of the specifications under priority one. The outcomes numbers for each of the specifications cannot always be directly compared. However, a full breakdown of outcomes and definitions by specification is provided at Appendix 2. The purpose of aggregating performance data in this way is to provide members with a high level picture of performance at priority level. A more detailed breakdown at provider level can be made available on request and some initial reflections on what can be inferred from the data are provided below.

19. Q2 performance against profile is generally positive. To date, priority one providers are 38% ahead of aggregate profile as shown in Figure 1. Priority 1 Homelessness Delivery against Profile (below).

Figure 1. Priority 1 Homelessness Delivery against Profile

| Specification | Profile | Actual | Difference | Variance | 2 yr Value of Grants (£m) | No. Providers | |---------------|---------|--------|------------|----------|--------------------------|---------------| | 1.1 Homelessness and Early Intervention | 1,551 | 1,717 | 166 | 11% | £3.79 | 6 | | 1.2 Youth Homelessness | 1,417 | 2,300 | 883 | 62% | £1.46 | 1 | | 1.3 Support Services to Homelessness VCOs | 40 | 135 | 95 | 238% | £0.30 | 1 | | Total | 3,008 | 4,152 | 1,144 | 38% | £5.54 | 8 |

20. Good performance can be observed across each of the specifications. Providers under specification 1.1 (early intervention and prevention) are largely in-line with what the grants team would consider normal levels of variance (+/-15%) and are currently delivering 11% ahead of aggregate profile.

21. Notable areas of success in specification 1.1 continue to be the number of people who have reported improvements in life skills and employment and training opportunities (674 individuals have benefited in this areas against a profile of 582 - 16% ahead of target). However, there has also been a significant improvement in the number of people from groups with protected characteristics (as defined by the Equalities Act 2010) accessing housing advice (286 against a profile of 283 – 28% ahead of target).

22. Performance under specification 1.2 (youth homelessness) and 1.3 (support services) is significantly ahead of profile (62% and 238% respectively). For the London Youth Gateway project, led by New Horizon Youth Centre (specification 1.2 - £1.46 million), the two main drivers of over performance are the number of people from groups with protected characteristics (as defined by the Equalities Act 2010) accessing housing advice (1,714 against a profile of 931 – 62% ahead of target) and the number of homeless young people helped to obtain accommodation (166 against a profile of 116 – 43% ahead of target).

23. For the former outcome area, all of London Youth Gateway’s clients have at least one of the protected characteristics due to their age. However, of these, 1,410 have two or more of the projected characteristics. The project uses a variety of measures to ensure that their services area accessible. These include:

a. Satellite and street outreach services that enable the provider to meet homeless young people where they are; b. Specialist group sessions for men and women to address their specific needs; c. Intensive mentoring sessions for young people who are particularly vulnerable due to issues such as gang affiliation.

24. The provider has also assisted young homeless people to secure a range of different types of accommodation, which ranges from:

a. Emergency accommodation for 145 young people b. Engagement work with 14 new releases from young offenders institutions to prevent homelessness c. Securing private rented accommodation for seven young people.

25. Homeless Link continues to perform well against their primary outcome indicators. However, they have noted that there has been lower than expected take-up against some of their secondary outcome indicators. For example, the numbers of people registering for equalities and diversity training is significantly lower than anticipated (-90%). As a result, officers have agreed that the organisation can instead offer consultancy support to organisations on undertaking equalities impact assessments, as this will be of greater practical benefit.
26. In Q4, Homeless Link will continue its work with beneficiaries on diversifying funding streams. This responds to the changing funding landscape for homelessness charities, 50% of which have seen funding fall by over 15% in 2012. Training will address new forms of funding such as the introduction of outcome related funding and social impact bonds, which whilst representing opportunities for organisations, also present challenges.

3.2 Priority 1 Suggested Contractual Changes 27. Officers do not recommend any changes to contracts.

3.3 Forward view 28. Officers have recently undertaken a survey of borough officers to assess the extent to which London Councils funded providers are meeting their needs. The results of this survey will be analysed and presented to the July 2014 committee.

4 Priority 2 (Sexual and Domestic Violence)

4.1 Priority 2 Performance against Profile 29. At its meeting 20 February 2013 Grants Committee agreed funding totalling £6.81 million over two years to 11 organisations to deliver services that tackle sexual and domestic violence:

- One commission is delivering against specification 2.1 (Prevention) (£0.4 million);
- four commissions are delivering against specification 2.2 (Advice, counselling, outreach, drop-in and support for access to services) (£3.43 million);
- one commission is delivering against specification 2.3 (Helpline and co-ordinated access to refuge provision) (£0.5 million);
- two commissions are delivering against specification 2.4 (Emergency refuge accommodation that offers services to meet the needs of specific groups) (£1.23 million);
- one commission is delivering against specification 2.5 (Support services to sexual and domestic violence voluntary sector organisations) (£0.61 million);
- two commissions are delivering against specification 2.6 (Services targeted at combatting female genital mutilation, honour based violence, forced marriage and harmful practices) (£0.64 million).

30. The following paragraphs provide high level detail regarding delivery against profile in Q3. Members are asked to note that this section of the report provides aggregate performance figures against profile to date for the primary outcomes against each of the specifications under Priority 2. The same rationale for presenting the information in this way and limitations regarding comparison apply as for Priority 1. However, a full breakdown of outcomes and definitions by specification is provided at Appendix 3.
31. Aggregate performance for Priority 2 is 28% behind profile (compared to 12% ahead of profile last quarter) (see Figure 2. Priority 2 Sexual and Domestic Violence Provision Delivery against Profile below).

Figure 2. Priority 2 Sexual and Domestic Violence Provision Delivery against Profile

| Specification | Profile | Actual | Difference | Variance | 2yr Value of Grants (£m) | No. Providers | |---------------|---------|--------|------------|----------|--------------------------|---------------| | 2.1 Prevention | 5,028 | 3,885 | -1,143 | -23% | £0.40 | 1 | | 2.2 Advice, counselling, outreach, drop-in | 17,151 | 11,528 | -5,623 | -33% | £3.43 | 4 | | 2.3 Helpline and coordinated access to refuge provision | 283 | 293 | 10 | 4% | £0.50 | 1 | | 2.4 Specialist emergency refuge provision | 84 | 116 | 32 | 38% | £1.23 | 2 | | 2.5 Support services SDV VCOs | 147 | 357 | 210 | 143% | £0.61 | 1 | | 2.6 Harmful practices (FGM, HBV, forced marriage and other) | 331 | 990 | 659 | 199% | £0.64 | 2 | | Total | 23,024 | 17,169 | -5,855 | -25% | £6.81 | 11 |

32. The two specifications that are driving under-performance in priority two are specification 2.1 (prevention) and specification 2.2 (advice, counselling, outreach, drop-in and support for access to services). These specifications are tasked with delivering by far the highest number of outcomes across the priority and therefore skew the figures at a cumulative level. The remaining four specifications are all delivering ahead of target.

33. Tender Education and Arts (£0.4 million – specification 2.1) reported that in Q3, their numbers were lower than profiled due to decreased access to schools, which form the majority of its delivery venues. In the run up to Christmas, schools generally have a fuller timetable and during the Christmas holiday period are closed altogether. Whilst Tender Education and Arts had planned school closures into its delivery profile, it had not realised the difficulty of getting into schools in the run-up to Christmas.

34. As a result (and in accordance with borough officer recommendations), Tender Education and Arts focussed more on out of school settings such as youth and community centres, which tend to have lower numbers of users. This has led to the variance of -23% shown in Figure 2. Priority 2 Sexual and Domestic Violence Provision Delivery against Profile (above) ².

35. Officers have addressed this issue with the organisation, and are confident that the shortfall will be made up over the coming quarter. Officers are working with Tender Education and Arts to ensure that profiling in year two takes into account holiday periods and the resulting peaks and troughs of delivery. Other than this, officers do not recommend any contractual changes.

36. Specification 2.2 (advice, counselling, outreach, drop-in and support for access to services) delivered at -36% of profile in Q3³. Performance here is being particularly affected by the Solace Women’s Aid, which includes 14 partners, the majority of funding (£2.7 million), and the majority of outcomes. All other providers delivering against this specification are ahead of target.

37. Solace Women’s Aid achieved a borderline green RAG risk rating score, which decreased from 79.14 (green) in Q2 to 76.14 (green) in Q3. If taken on its own, the performance element of the RAG score would indicate an orange rating (68%). However, the other elements of the scoring framework (self-assessment of quality (72%), participant satisfaction (91%), and contract compliance (94%)) are good and allow the organisation to maintain its green rating.

38. Officers have been in close contact with Solace Women’s Aid and have received information on which they would like the committee to take a view. Members are asked to note that the partnership of 14 organisations delivering this service is large and was put together specifically to address grants programme priorities.

39. This partnership approach was a significant departure from previous ways of working in the sector, which has traditionally been characterised by small organisations operating with limited budgets and on a small geographical scale. As a result, partners had little experience of working in a coordinated way on a pan-London scale and did not have examples of previous delivery on which to draw when pricing services and estimating achievable outcomes.

40. As a result, the partnership has faced several challenges. Firstly, they underestimated the amount of time it would take to set up services. When bidding for the work, they had assumed that the

² Members are asked to note that the despite the -23% performance against profile, Tender Education and Arts, received a green RAG rating. The reason for this is that the performance element of the RAG rating averages the percentage under and over performance (although caps the points available for delivery at 100% of profile) to ensure that a balanced view can be taken of performance. In contrast, the performance tables presented to committee use the raw numbers of outcomes delivered to assess performance against profile. Please see appendix 5 for Tender Education and Arts.

³ Please see previous footnote for an explanation of the difference in the weighted RAG rating delivery score and the performance against profile detailed above. largest hurdle to overcome would be setting up systems. While this has been, and to some extent continues to be, an issue; a greater challenge has been setting up from scratch in new boroughs.

41. Most of the partners had taken their existing relationships for granted (i.e. did not account for the amount of time it had taken to establish relationships) and had assumed that new set-up times would be minimal. However, they found that the following issues have taken longer than expected:

a. Making links with borough officers and being accepted within boroughs' safeguarding networks; b. Sourcing venues and generating referrals; and c. Establishing counselling and group work sessions – raising awareness and gaining a local presence.

42. In addition, working on a larger geographic scale, covering more boroughs has led to changes in the nature of the interventions delivered. Previously, working with small numbers of service users in a small number of locations, support had tended to be regular and over a longer period of time. However, working through the hub and spoke model and in a peripatetic way, interventions have been shorter with an emphasis on advice, and as a result, progress more difficult to track.

43. This issue has been compounded by the different way in which the partnership and London Councils interpreted the outcome definitions set by the committee at applications stage. For example, for the ‘service users experiencing changed living situation’ outcome, the partnership had interpreted this widely and had understood this to include developing coping strategies within beneficiaries' current living arrangements; whereas, officers had expected to see more tangible results that would result is sexual and domestic violence ceasing altogether.

44. And while issues such as this were addressed at the grant negotiation stage, the partnership were not vocal enough is articulating the impact that accepting London Councils' more tangible definition would have on the numbers of people achieving this outcome i.e. the target became more challenging and therefore the numbers should have been reduced to reflect this.

45. Officers have considered the issues raised by Solace and partners and have taken into account the findings of a recent borough officer survey. They consider that the case made by Solace is compelling. Moreover, officers recognise that the partnership has made large strides towards providing a genuinely co-ordinated and pan-London offer. Officers also note that the partnership is also doing well in recruiting beneficiaries and is 44% ahead of target.

46. Furthermore, Solace Women's Aid has identified that it is likely to underspend by year end. At this stage, it considers that a figure of c. £35,000 is likely. Officers will confirm the final figure at Q4 and move any balances into reserves.

47. For these reasons, officers recommend that the original targets set out in the grant agreement are reduced to take into account the learning described above. This is set out in section 4.2 (suggested contractual changes) (below). Members are asked to note that if agreed, the changes will be binding and officers will make clear to the partnership that further under-delivery will lead to commensurate reductions in grant funding.

48. Despite some challenges in specifications 2.1 and 2.2, good progress is being made across the other specifications. Significant over-performance (+143%) can be seen in specification 2.5 (support services to sexual and domestic violence voluntary sector organisations).

49. The Women's Resource Centre (£608,000) is the lead under this specification and has reported excellent progress against outcome two (frontline providers able to deliver improved services to meet their clients’ needs (deliver, monitor, evaluate and adapt) – 83 outcomes against a profile of 12) and outcome four (frontline organisations able to better represent their service users and ensure they are up to date with policy changes – 75 outcomes against a profile of 25)

50. A range of activities were delivered, including (but not limited to):

- North west and south west London borough surgeries attended by 29 organisations from 17 boroughs. The surgeries covered borough commissioning processes and gave participants the opportunity to share views from both buyer and supplier perspectives;
- Accredited training programmes on the following subjects:
  - forced marriage and honour based violence (25 participants)
  - Working with perpetrators
  - Risk assessing domestic violence perpetrators
  - Promoting recovery to support women with complex needs
  - Working with gang-affected girls

51. Feedback from participants has generally been very positive and includes borough Violence Against Women and Girls coordinators that have taken part. For instance, Clare Elcombe (VAWG coordinator for Bromley) emailed Women's Resource Centre to say: “It was a pleasure to take part and I’m glad you thought my input was useful – I think the work the WRC does is invaluable and I’m happy to be part of it in any way I can”.

52. Finally, under specification 2.6 (harmful practices including honour based violence, forced marriage and female genital mutilation (FGM)) providers reported over-performance of 199%. One provider in particular, Asian Women’s Resource Centre’s Ending Harmful Practices project (£600,000) is delivering above expectations against two outcome measures. First, Service users are able to make safe choices and exit violent situations/ service users have enhanced coping strategies through risk assessment and safeguarding (212 against a target of 148); and second, service users gaining a better understanding of the support options available to them and are more aware of their rights and entitlements (381 against a target of 19).

53. The organisation and partners work in a number of ways to achieve these outcomes. They have actively raised awareness of their services amongst professionals and have provided information about how to make referrals if they have concerns about someone at risk of FGM. Their networks include midwives, health visitors, GPs, hospital staff and schools.

54. For the victims, they provide one to one emotional support, group sessions, help accessing specialist FGM clinics including accompanying victims and translation support in Arabic, Somali, Amharic and French), befriending, and help to access education and training.

4.2 Priority 2 Suggested Contractual Changes 55. Officers recommend the following contractual changes to Solace Women's Aid's grant agreement:

| Output/outcome area | Primary number | Current year 2 profile | Proposed year 2 profile | Proposed change to annual profile (% of users that will achieve outcome) | Reason for change | |----------------------------------------------------------|----------------|------------------------|-------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | New Users | | 9409 | 9409 | No change | No change | | SUs remaining in the service until needs are met | 1 | 8468 | 8468 | No change | No change | | SUs have increased level of safety reduced level of risk | 2 | 8025 | 7057 | -12% (75%) | 75% of new users is a more realistic figure based on number of one off calls, professional callers and crisis calls via the Hubs and via the legal advice line. | | SUs report increased understanding of their needs by providers | 3 | 8468 | 6586 | -22% (70%) | 70% is a more realistic figure based upon the fact it is not always possible to capture this data via the hubs and legal line and SUs reporting increased understanding of their needs is more likely to come over a period of time rather than with a short-term intervention. | | SUs have increased levels of independence and ability to make decisions | 4 | 7602 | 4705 | -38% (50%) | 50% of new users is a more realistic figure. It is not always possible to capture this data via the hubs and legal line and SUs reporting increased levels of independence and ability to | | Output/outcome area | Primary number | Current year 2 profile | Proposed year 2 profile | Proposed change to annual profile (% of users that will achieve outcome) | Reason for change | |---------------------|----------------|------------------------|-------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------| | SUs have changed living situation | 5 | 8025 | 2352 | -71% (25%) | make decisions is more likely to come over a period of time rather than with a short-term intervention. Hubs and legal line not able to capture for many SUs. | | SUs are better able to access services appropriately (including sexual health; mental health and drug and alcohol support) | 6 | 6758 | 4705 | -30% (50%) | 25% of new users represents a more realistic target. Higher number of one-off callers via hub and legal line. Also this outcome is more likely to be achieved for longer term work and as advice tends to be one-off or for four weeks, SUs living situation will often not be changed within this timeframe. Changes to legislation mean that housing is slower to obtain and SUs more reluctant to change. Initial understanding of outcome was broader but has since been clarified as applying to a physical change in living situation hence target reduction. | | People from protected characteristics reporting increased knowledge of rights, entitlements & options | 7 | 8186 | 4,705 | -42% (50%) | 50% represents a more realistic target as this is a longer-term outcome which could be achieved over time rather than via one-off and shorter term interventions. via hub. The legal line users would not achieve this outcome area. | | | | | | | 50% of new users represents a more realistic target as initially we thought we could include women into this outcome area but it has since been clarified that women would not be included so the target was unrealistic. Additionally, lower results than initially predicted due to one-off callers via hub and legal line. | 4.3 Work with boroughs and forward view

56. The Q2 progress report highlighted some issues that had been raised by borough officers in Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth. These included the extent to which services linked into borough level arrangements on safeguarding and ensuring that services did not duplicated borough provision.

57. In response, officers suggested two immediate areas for action. First, a meeting with MOPAC and VAWG co-ordinators was arranged in December. Before the meeting, London Councils surveyed borough officers to get their views of the provision being delivered through priority two. The findings of this survey (available at Appendix 10) were presented to borough officers and funded organisations.

58. Findings from the survey were generally positive, with a majority (77%) of respondents saying they thought London Councils funded services were useful or very useful. In the majority of cases, borough officers said they were referring people to the services. However, this picture was not uniform across all services. Furthermore some issues were highlighted relating to communication by organisations of their offer. In the case of large partnerships, better co-ordination of communications activity was recommended. The Q3 narrative reports show evidence that the providers have begun to act on the recommendations.

59. Second, London Councils has undertaken ad hoc facilitation with the three boroughs mentioned above. This has largely addressed the issues raised. However, in one case (Merton), relevant partners are still in the process of signed up to working agreements with the borough.

5 Priority 3 (Poverty)

5.1 Priority 3 Background information

60. At its meeting 20 February 2013 Grants Committee agreed funding of £3.76 million (includes 50% ESF match funding) to 10 organisations to deliver services that tackle poverty:

- One commission is delivering against specification 3.1a (disabled parents) (£0.38 million)
- one commission is delivering against specification 3.1b (people with mental health needs) (£0.38 million)
- three commissions are delivering against specification 3.2 (people from ethnic groups with low labour market participation rates) (£1.13 million)
- four commissions are delivering against specification 3.3 (women facing barriers to employment) (£1.5 million)
- one commission is delivering against specification 3.4 (people recovering from drug and alcohol misuse) (£0.38 million).

61. In preparation for the current round of funding, members asked officers to undertake some benchmarking work to ensure that London Councils’ ESF activities provide good value for money and effectiveness compared to other similar programmes.

62. With regard to effectiveness, for ESF programmes covering the first half of the 2007-13 ESF programming period, London Councils’ providers placed 23% of people leaving the scheme in a job and 13% of leavers sustained employment for six months. Six month sustainment figures for the GLA and Skills Funding Agency (SFA) were 13% and 3% respectively for the same period (ESF Co-financing Organisation (CFO) group performance and expenditure reports August 2012).

63. For the 2013-15 period, London Councils has set a more challenging target of 16% for the achievement of six-month sustained employment outcomes. The 10 funded commissions under this priority have indicated that they will be able to meet this challenge and if successful, will contribute to reducing the unit cost of these outcomes from the average of £22,000 on previous London Councils ESF provision to £7,500. For comparison, the average cost of each outcome for the GLA programmes has been £14,000 and for the SFA, £28,000.

5.2 Priority 3 Performance against Profile

64. The following paragraphs provide high level detail regarding delivery against profile in Q2 and comparison against Q1. Unlike previous priorities, the outcome measures for each of the specifications in priority three are directly comparable, as they are consistent for all contracts. Therefore, two charts are provided (below), one which shows performance by specification (Figure 3. Priority 3 Poverty (ESF) Delivery against Profile (Specification)), the other which shows delivery against outcome indicator type. A full breakdown of performance by specification is also provided at Appendix 4.

______________________________________________________________________

4 The benchmark unit costs were worked out by taking programme expenditure at the time of the programme launch (August 2012) and dividing it by the number of six month sustained jobs that had been delivered. For the SFA, this exercise resulted in a unit cost of £27,680.05: For the GLA, it resulted in a unit cost of £14,212.13. NB the figures used here represent a snapshot of performance at August 2012 and these may have subsequently changed. 5.2.1 Priority 3 Performance against Profile (Specification Level)

65. Aggregate performance for priority three is 18% behind profile; a decrease of six percentage points against Q2. Under-delivery at levels above tolerance (+/-15%) can be observed across three specifications; 3.1b (people with mental health needs), 3.3 (women facing barriers to employment) and 3.4 (people recovering from drug and alcohol abuse).

66. Peter Bedford Housing Association (3.1b – contract value £376,040) was largely in line with profile (-2%) last quarter. However, Q3 saw significant slippage, particularly against the targets for people gaining employment (27 against a profile of 45 (-40%)) and people progressing into further education and training (19 against a profile of 45 (-58%)).

67. Following further investigation, officers can report the following. Peter Bedford Housing Association works with people with a range of mental health conditions including dual diagnosis and learning difficulties. Their beneficiaries often have large gaps in their working histories. As a means to provide work experience in appropriate environments, Peter Bedford Housing Association runs a gift shop (supplied by in-house crafts manufacture) as well as a canteen to offer first steps into retail and catering.

68. The gift shop was closed for refurbishment from mid-October 2013 until early December 2013. The closure affected the number of work experience opportunities it could offer and also created a bottleneck in progressions into employment. The organisation is confident that it will be able to make back the shortfall over the remainder of the project lifetime. However, the organisation and officers have agreed that a re-profiling exercise will be required, as it is unlikely the shortfall will be made up by the end of Q4.

69. Poor performance against specification 3.3 continues to be largely driven by London Training and Employment Network (LTEN) (specification 3.3 – contract value £376,040). As mentioned in the Q2 report and RAG rating section (above), the provider has developed good links with employers in the health and social care field, but has reported delays is the time taken to obtain the criminal records checks required by employers in this sector. Previously, this had impacted on the work placements outcome, but has begun to affect the numbers of people progressing into employment (19 against a profile of 52 (-63%)).

70. Officers have been in close contact with the provider and believe that the issues they are raising do have credibility. Nevertheless, as the situation has been on-going for the past two quarters, officers consider that it is appropriate to increase the frequency of provider reporting, so that the situation can be monitored closely. As a result, LTEN will be requested to provide monthly update reports. Should the situation not improve by the end of Q4, officers will recommend a reduction in contract value to reflect likely outturn.

71. Officers have also been in close communication with St Mungo’s (specification 3.3 – contract value £376,040) to assess reasons for underperformance. Since the last committee meeting, one of the provider’s partners, Foundation 66, decided to pull out. In addition, the organisation has continues to experience difficulties in moving participants into employment.

72. Officers have been in discussion with the provider and have reached agreement that it will not be possible for the organisation to deliver to target. As part of these discussions, officers have worked with the provider to look at the numbers of participants it has in its ‘pipeline’ and agreed on a more realistic profile. As a result, officers are recommending a reduction in funding to St Mungo’s of £132,720. This is fully detailed in section (5.2 below).

73. In addition, to reducing St Mungo’s contract, officers undertook a re-profiling exercise with the Citizen’s Trust, highlighted as amber RAG risk rated in Q2. As part of this exercise, officers also recommend a reduction in funding of £52,800, bringing their revised contract value to £323,240. This is fully detailed in section (5.2 overleaf).

74. Analysis of aggregate performance against target for each of the outputs and outcomes reveals some interesting trends. The number of people receiving six hours of support is generally in line with profile (-10%). Two areas where some under-performance is currently observed do not cause officers serious concern at this stage.

75. First, whilst the number of people completing work or volunteering placements is 31% (130) behind profile, officers are reserving the flexibility granted by committee at its last meeting to swap these outcomes for more valuable job and sustained employment outcomes. Officers expect to use this option with providers over the coming quarter.

76. Second, as previously reported, officers are aware that providers are sitting on a bank of possible progression into education or training outcomes, which are being reserved until employment. Therefore, while this outcome area is currently 42% (140) behind profile, officers are confident that the situation can be reversed.

77. Slightly more concerning is the shortfall in numbers of people entering employment, currently 20% (85) behind profile. Members are asked to note that the providers mentioned in previous paragraphs (Paddington Development Trust, LTEN, Peter Bedford Housing and St Mungo’s) are collectively 90 behind profile. Officers have explained the actions they are taking to address this. 5.2 Priority 3 Suggested Contractual Changes

78. There are two suggested contractual changes. First, officers propose a reduction in contract value of £126,500 to St Mungo Community Housing Association. Second, a reduction of £52,800 is recommended for The Citizen’s Trust. The details of the changes are set out in the tables below.

Table 1. St Mungo Community Housing Association Contractual Changes

| | 6+ hrs of support | Work placement | Gaining Employment 13 weeks | Sustaining employment | Further Education or Training | Final Evaluation | |------------------|-------------------|----------------|-----------------------------|-----------------------|-------------------------------|------------------| | Original | 307 | 153 | 100 | 50 | 122 | 1 | | Revised | 210 | 60 | 80 | 33 | 80 | 1 | | Units Variance | -97 | -93 | -20 | -17 | -42 | n/a | | Financial Variance | -£33,950 | -£32,550 | -£16,000 | -£27,200 | -£16,800 | £- |

Table 2. The Citizen’s Trust Contractual Changes

| | 6+ hrs of support | Work placement | Gaining Employment 13 weeks | Sustaining employment | Further Education or Training | Final Evaluation | |------------------|-------------------|----------------|-----------------------------|-----------------------|-------------------------------|------------------| | Original | 307 | 153 | 100 | 50 | 122 | 1 | | Revised | 264 | 132 | 85 | 43 | 104 | 1 | | Units Variance | -43 | -21 | -15 | -7 | -18 | 0 | | Financial Variance | -£15,050 | -£7,350 | -£12,000 | -£11,200 | -£7,200 | £- |

79. If approved, the changes would free up £185,520 of resources (£92,760 of grants committee funds and £92,760 of ESF). At this stage, officers would recommend retaining the funding within the ESF programme for two reasons. First, moving the balance of grants funding to underspend would mean losing the ESF match funding. Second, by retaining with the ESF programme, the committee would have the flexibility to award over-delivery by other projects within the programme.

5.3 Forward view

80. The heads of regeneration and economic development borough officer network will be surveyed over the coming quarter to get their views on current provision and recommendations for future programmes. The second part of the survey will help London Councils to begin planning for the 2014-20 London ESF programme, which is due to begin delivery in late 2015. London Councils will work with interested boroughs to access ESF and develop borough specific programmes of activity. 5.4 Wider London Councils ESF Programme

5.4.1 Background

81. Despite working with harder to reach workless people, by the time the 2007-13 London Councils ESF programmes finish delivery in late 2015, London Councils anticipates that 33% of people (9,173 individuals) who accessed the programme will have found work and at least 21% (5,932 individuals) will have sustained work for six months at an average unit cost of £8,400. London Councils’ programmes have the highest rates of people moving into employment (42% higher than the London average) and deliver at a unit cost lower than the London average (-4 %).

82. London Councils is one of five ESF co-financing organisations (CFOs). The others are: d. The Greater London Authority (GLA) e. The Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) f. The Skills Funding Agency (SFA) g. The National Offender Management Service (NOMS)

83. The London Councils ESF programmes draw match funding from two sources; the S.48 London Councils Grants Scheme(^5) and individual borough contributions (27 boroughs have contributed in the 2007-13 ESF programming period). Details of expenditure and achievement to date can be seen in table 3 (below).

| Table 3. London Councils ESF Expenditure and Achievement (April 08-Nov 13) | |-----------------------------|-----------------------------|-----------------------------| | | Grants Committee | Borough | Total | | Spend to date(^6) | £14,002,720 | £11,298,784 | £25,301,504 | | People Supported | 8,075 | 17,096 | 25,171 | | Jobs | 1,218 | 3,885 | 5,103 | | Sustained Jobs (Six Months) | 595 | 1,702 | 2,297 | | Progressions into Further Education | 1,776 | 3,047 | 4,823 |

84. London Councils programmes are unique in two ways: h. The Grants Scheme matched element (£2m in total pa) is the only programme that works exclusively with the voluntary sector; and

______________________________________________________________________

(^5) The Section 48 Scheme was legislated for in the Local Government Act 1985. The legislation provides for a borough grants scheme to be funded by all London boroughs, with contributions made on the basis of population.

(^6) Figures to 30 November 2013 i. The borough programmes (c. £3m in total pa) are the only ones designed by London local authorities.

85. Both programmes have a common focus on working with those people further from the labour market i.e. people who are on benefits other than jobseekers allowance.

1.1 Performance and value for money

Table 4. Performance and Value for Money (April 08-Nov 2013)

| CFO | Economically Inactive (%) | Unemployed (%) | 14-19 NEET | Job outcomes (% of leavers) | Unit cost per job outcome | Six month sustained job outcomes (% of leavers) | Unit cost per six month sustained job outcome | |------|---------------------------|----------------|------------|-----------------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------| | LC | 67% | 32% | | 27% | £4,958 | 13% | £11,015 | | GLA | 23% | 47% | 29% | 25% | £4,983 | 14% | £9,171 | | SFA | 10% | 44% | 38% | 17% | £8,782 | 1% | £277,121 | | NOMS | 31% | 61% | 9% | 20% | £7,992 | Information not available | Information not available | | DWP | 48% | 46% | 6% | 17% | £5,876 | Information not available | Information not available | | London Average | 30% | 45% | 21% | 19% | £6,518 | n/a | n/a |

86. The London Councils programmes are generally performing well compared with the other CFOs. They work with a significantly higher proportion of hard to reach participants. This is borne out by the proportion of targeted economically inactive participants (67%) (in receipt of benefits such as Incapacity Benefit and Employment Support Allowance (see table 4 above)) and the relatively low proportion of unemployed participants (32%) (in receipt of Job-Seekers Allowance).

87. Despite working with harder to reach workless people, London Councils' programmes have the highest rates of people moving into employment (27%) – 42% higher than the London average – and deliver at a unit cost (£4,958) lower (-24%) than the London average (£6,518).

88. Currently, 13% of people how have left provision have sustained employment. This has been delivered at a unit cost of £11,015. London Councils is one of only three CFOs that produce data on the number of people sustaining employment for six months and therefore, wider comparison with other funders is not possible.

______________________________________________________________________

7 Members are asked to note that this figure has been derived using the same methodology as London Councils and GLA i.e. dividing programme costs by the numbers of people reported as achieving the outcome. However, several factors may influence the above figure. First, SFA providers are geared to delivering skills outputs (qualifications etc.) and the way in which they contract with organisations (using prime contractors with large supply chains of sub-contractors with whom the agency does not have a direct relationship) may make it difficult to collect evidence of sustained job outcomes. 89. Whilst these rates are currently slightly lower – and associated costs higher – than the GLA, London Councils continues to make efforts to improve this situation. For example, on grants committee funded provision, London Councils has learnt lessons from the borough funded activities and for current programmes has set higher expectations for providers regarding outcomes and results. On the most recent round of S.48 funding, the contracted target for numbers of people entering employment is 30%, and for sustaining employment, 16% at a unit cost of £7,500.

90. The current value for money position on current delivery (1,764 participants) and expenditure (£963,930) is set out below:

Table 5. London Councils Poverty (ESF) provision April 2013-Dec 2013

| Source of funding | Unemployed (%) | Economically Inactive (%) | 14-19 NEET | Job outcomes (% of leavers) | Unit cost per job outcome | Six month sustained job outcomes (% of leavers) | Unit cost per six month sustained job outcome | |-------------------|----------------|---------------------------|------------|-----------------------------|--------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------| | Grants Committee | 40% | 60% | n/a | 59% | £2,810 | 6% | £28,350 |

91. The percentage of leavers gaining employment currently stands at 59%. Officers anticipate that this figure will come down, and the associated unit cost (currently £2,810) will increase. Conversely, as the number of six month sustained outcomes increase, the associated unit cost will also come down in line with the £7,500 figure quoted above.

92. Members are asked to note that the unit cost figure for six month sustained job outcomes is particularly high at this stage of the programme because providers are nine months into delivery and Q3 was the first quarter in which delivery of this outcome was possible. A more realistic estimate of the unit cost would be to calculate the figure based on 1/3 of total expenditure. This would take the figure to £9,450.

93. By the time the delivery of all 2007-13 programmes (grants programme and borough) finishes in late 2015, London Councils anticipates that 33% of people who accessed its programmes will have found work and at least 16% will have sustained work for six months at an average unit cost of £8,400.

______________________________________________________________________

8 It should be noted that as well as working with more difficult to reach participants, the London Councils programme, unlike the GLA programme, does not work with a large number of NEETS who if moved into an apprenticeship can be claimed as a job outcome.

9 It should be noted that the grants committee funded programmes work with very challenging target groups such as homeless people, disabled people and people recovering from addiction. 6 Priority 4 (Capacity Building)

6.1 Priority 4 Performance against Profile

94. At its meeting 20 February 2013 Grants Committee agreed funding of £2.66 million over two years to six projects to deliver services that support London’s voluntary and community sector organisations and enable them to access funds and improve skills and resources to provide effective services to communities.

95. Like priority three (poverty), all of the primary outcomes are directly comparable. Therefore, two charts are provided (below), one which shows performance by specification (Figure 5. Priority 4: Delivery against Profile (Specification Level)), the other which shows delivery against outcome indicator type (Figure 6. Priority 4 Delivery against Profile (Primary Outcome Indicators)). Members are asked to note that the figures provided below refer to number of organisations supported, rather than individuals.

Figure 5. Priority 4: Delivery against Profile (Specification Level)

96. In Q3, providers reported under-performance of 1%. As shown in Figure 5 and Figure 6 (overleaf) there was a significant turnaround in Q3, with providers now reporting delivery of outcomes 47% ahead of target.

97. Members are asked to note that in the previous quarter, two providers (Inclusion London - £560,000 and Age Concern - £310,154) had reported numbers that were not included due to grants officer concerns about the extent to which the evidence was in place to support outcomes.

98. Officers can now report the following progress. In the case of Age Concern, officers are confident that the outcomes reported are supported by evidence. As a result, all outcomes reported by Age Concern have been included above. Indeed, the organisation accounts for 65% of the reported over-delivery at the priority level in Q3. Examples of the type of progress beneficiaries have made includes (but is not limited to):

a. Increased ability to implement effective governance (seven organisations) b. Increased ability to bid for funding (14 organisations) c. Increased ability to use social media to increase promotion and reach (seven organisations).

099. In the case of Inclusion London, as with Age Concern, officers are now happy that the outcomes reported can and will be evidenced with robust information. For example, in order to measure progress against outcome one (Increased ability of voluntary and community organisations (VCOs) in London to deliver efficient and effective services and increased business acumen), Inclusion London will be conducting follow up surveys with beneficiaries to understand the extent to which its interventions have had an impact in the medium term.

100. Officers are keen to ensure that when using surveys as a means of evidencing impact in priority four, the process is robust. A practical example of this can be seen in the way in which officers have worked with the largest provider under priority four, LVSC. LVSC recently issued a survey to its beneficiaries to collect views on the impact of the services it had provided.

101. On reviewing the survey, officers did not feel that there was a clear enough link between the questions asked and the individual interventions made. As a result, LVSC has agreed to update the questions it asks so that they provide a clearer measure of impact and re-run the survey later in the year.

______________________________________________________________________

10 The head of grants and community services would like to note for the record that in the case of information reported in Q2 regarding Age Concern, evidence was provided by the organisation that did demonstrate that outcomes had been delivered. And while this information was provided in a timely manner (prior to the committee meeting, but after dispatch of papers), due to minor IT issues, the head of grants did not have access to it when writing the committee report. As a result, officers did not undertake a priority monitoring visit to the provider described in the committee report, but instead carried out the visit in February as originally planned. 102. Figure 6 (above) shows that good progress is being made against two of the outcomes for priority four. Good performance by London Voluntary Services Council (£735,328) under the efficient and effective services outcome and Age Concern under the capacity and engagement outcome is in large part responsible for this.

103. There has also been a turnaround in performance against the equalities related outcome under priority four, which last quarter was 36% behind profile, but which stands at 9% behind profile at the end of Q3. A large part of this improvement can be explained by the inclusion of Age Concern and Inclusion London data.

6.2 Priority 4 Suggested Contractual Changes

104. Officers do not recommend any changes to contracts.

6.3 Work with boroughs and forward view

105. Following the survey of VAWG Coordinators in relation to Priority Two, officers have undertaken a similar process with regards to the Priority 4 projects. A survey was sent to the borough grants officers network. Findings from the survey were generally positive, with a majority (71%) of respondents saying they thought London Councils funded services were useful or very useful.
106. A report has been sent to providers and borough officers outlining a number of actions largely relating to increasing the awareness of services on offer amongst borough officers and relevant stakeholders. Two providers presented at the last meeting of the borough grants officers network, 27 February 2014, which provided borough officers with the opportunity to find out more about the provision being accessed by frontline organisations based in their borough.

7 London Funders

1. London Funders is the umbrella body of grant funders in London. It brings together public sector, independent foundations and corporate givers. Each year, the London Councils Grants Committee pays £60,000 in subscriptions on behalf of London boroughs. As well as providing a £14,800 saving to local government in London, the subscriptions pay for a range of services open to local authority staff. The following paragraphs cover what has been delivered by London funders during 2013 and highlight some changes that have been taking place within the organisation.

7.1 About London Funders

107. London Funders brings together a range of funders with the aim of sharing knowledge, developing best practice, improving efficiency and increasing the leverage of funding. Working on a cross sector basis, it provides a space for local government funders to enter into dialogue with their counterparts in independent foundations, livery companies, social investors, corporates and philanthropists. London Funders mission has been to strengthen and support funders to better meet the needs of Londoners.

108. Over the past 15 years, it has grown from an informal grouping of a few key London organisations into an independent registered charity with a membership of over 90 organisations. London Councils has been an instrumental part of this change. However, in recent years the Grants Committee has not received regular updates on activities undertaken by London Funders nor the extent to which boroughs are making use of their membership. The new director of London Funders has undertaken to reverse this situation.

7.1 Organisational changes

109. As a result of work carried out between London Councils officers and London Funders, London Funders has agreed to change its financial reporting year from January to December to April to March. This move, pushed by London Councils, will bring London Funders in line with the local authority financial year and make the payment of borough subscriptions more streamlined. London Funders’ 2014 reporting year will be extended by three months to allow for a one-off 15 month year ending on 31 March 2015. As a result, members are recommended to approve an additional quarter’s funding (£15,000) to London Funders to cover this additional period. 7.2 Borough involvement in London Funders events since November 2013

110. London boroughs have made up a significant proportion of attendees at London Funders events since the last grants committee meeting. Fifty-four (35%) of the 155 attendees were from boroughs. Twenty-seven local authorities were represented amongst this number. Officers from Hounslow, Merton, Redbridge and Waltham Forest attended events for the first time this year, which demonstrates that London Funders is increasing its reach.

Table 6. Borough Representation and London Funders Events since November 2013

| Date | Event | Total attendees | Borough Attendees | Number of boroughs represented | |------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|-------------------|-------------------------------| | 07/11/2013 | Project group - children and young people | 5 | 0 | 0 | | 12/11/2013 | Learning from funders - funding partnerships and consortia | 16 | 8 | 6 | | 14/11/2013 | Executive Committee meeting | 9 | 3 | 3 | | 21/11/2013 | Project group meeting - R&E | 15 | 1 | 1 | | 19/12/2013 | Cabinet Office - Big Lottery triennial review | 12 | 4 | 4 | | 16/01/2014 | Executive Committee meeting | 11 | 4 | 4 | | 17/01/2014 | Project group meeting - assets | 18 | 10 | 9 | | 21/01/2014 | Poverty and austerity | 39 | 9 | 7 | | 24/01/2014 | Funding strategy for London | 11 | 2 | 2 | | 11/02/2014 | Learning from funders - funding infrastructure | 19 | 13 | 10 | | | | 155 | 54 | |

111. Some examples of feedback by local authority attendees, when asked how the meeting would support them in performing their roles more effectively, include:

a. Feel less isolated in role - London Borough of Southwark b. Better understanding of wider contact/ issues/ challenges around infrastructure funding’ - London Borough of Merton c. ‘Good insight into partnership approaches for working’ - London Borough of Hackney d. ‘Broaden knowledge base’ - London Councils

112. London Funders would like to encourage officers from those boroughs who have not yet attended to make use of its services in the future. Details of future activities can be found on the London Funders website [http://www.londonfunders.org.uk/home](http://www.londonfunders.org.uk/home).

______________________________________________________________________

11 The boroughs that have not, thus far, participated in any London Funders events are: Bromley; Hillingdon, Kingston, Merton, Redbridge, Waltham Forest and Wandsworth. Over the last three months London Funders has been developing a new strategy which is currently being out for consultation. This plan sets out the organisation’s ambitions for the next three years, focused around three core objectives for its work:

a. To provide the space for learning and collaboration between funders; b. To be a voice for funders and to actively engage in policy debates; c. To identify and promote effective funding models;

It details a range of activities which London Funders will undertake to fulfil its objectives, sets out the outputs, outcomes and impact that it aims to achieve. As London Funders members' interests cover every aspect of London's life most of its work will remain targeted at general funding policy and practice issues affecting London and Londoners. However to increase the impact of its work around collaboration and policy influence it has identified three broad policy themes that will underpin a range of events, activities and outcomes for the next three years, these being:

a. Poverty, inequality and destitution; b. Children and young people; c. Health and wellbeing

8 Management and oversight

This section considers the grants team’s progress in the management and oversight of the programme.

The new monitoring approach agreed at the 20 February 2013 Grants Committee meeting is bedding in. Since April, the grants team’s business plan includes specific productivity and performance measures for providers and officers that are directly linked to the commissioning monitoring approach approved in February. The relevant measures and progress towards these are highlighted in the following sections of this report.

8.1 Provider returns

The team has been set a target of ensuring that at least 80% of providers submit quarterly returns within three days of the deadline. Officers have generally been impressed at the timeliness of provider returns. All providers, submitted their returns within three days of deadline. As a result, 100% of providers submitted within target. This is a positive improvement and is down to both the hard work of the funded commissions and timely prompting by the grants team.

Some providers are still feeding back to the grants team that the deadlines between quarter end and submission are very tight. London Councils had intended to investigate this more fully during November. However, due to the team’s workload, it will now undertake a survey of providers in the coming months to get their feedback on the new system. The purpose of the survey will be to make improvements to the system that benefits both London Councils and the providers. Committee are asked to note that suggestions for improvements will only be acted upon if they are in line with the monitoring and commissioning arrangements for the programme.

8.2 Provider payments

119. Given the tight turnaround time between the submission deadline and the date of dispatch for this report, there is limited progress to report on Q2 payments to providers. Nevertheless, the grants team is confident that it will be able to meet its target of paying providers within four weeks of approving quarterly returns as specified in the new monitoring arrangements. The new arrangements also make payment contingent on organisations having fulfilled all necessary conditions of payment, which can include completing actions raised at monitoring visits, or requests for information.

120. The table below sets out the number of payments made relating to Q3, the number of payments on hold due to outstanding information and the number of payments not made due to delays in processing:

Table 7. Quarter Three Payments

| Priority | Payments made | On hold – awaiting further information from organisation | On hold – processing delays at London Councils | Total | Average time taken to process payment (days) | |--------------------------------|---------------|--------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|-------|--------------------------------------------| | 1. Homelessness | 7 | 1 | | 8 | 9 | | 2. Sexual and domestic violence| 7 | 2 | 2 | 11 | 8 | | 3. Poverty | 8 | 2 | | 10 | 8 | | 4. Capacity building | 5 | 1 | | 6 | 14 | | Total | 27 | 5 | 3 | 35 | 10 |

121. 26 of the 35 payments scheduled for Q3 have been made. In 5 of the remaining cases, officers are awaiting further information from providers before payment can be released. In three cases, officers are still in the process of assessing information received.
122. Officers have made good progress against their target of processing payments within four weeks. The average time taken for quarter one payments to be made following sign off is 10 days. The range was one to 28 calendar days. As a result, all payments were made within the target of four weeks.

8.3 Provider monitoring

123. The grants team has a target to ensure that providers are visited twice a year. They spent a significant part of the last quarter undertaking monitoring visits. As part of the monitoring arrangements two main types of visit are undertaken; information i.e. audit type and delivery i.e. observation. To date, the following numbers of visits have been undertaken:

| Priority | Information | Delivery | Total | |---------------------------------|-------------|----------|-------| | Homelessness | 6 | 7 | 13 | | Sexual and domestic violence | 8 | 7 | 15 | | Poverty | 9 | 1\* | 10 | | Capacity building | 5 | 5 | 10 | | **Total** | **28** | **20** | **48**|

\*10 visits are booked before the end of the financial year

124. As highlighted in Table 8 (above), officers have undertaken 48 visits to providers to date. There has been a combination of information and delivery observance visits. To date, the visits have not revealed any substantive compliance issues. However, in some instances, officers have not been able to cover every element included in the visit templates within the time available to them. Where this is the case, these areas will be covered at subsequent visits.

125. By 31 March 2014, officers had planned to have undertaken two visits to each provider – a total of 70. It is unlikely that this target will be fully met. A number of issues have fed into this situation. First, the majority of quarter one was taken up by the grants agreement process. As a result, officers effectively lost a quarter.

126. The team had hoped to be able to make this time up during the course of the year. However, the visit schedule was disrupted in February by the tube strikes, with three visits having to be cancelled as a result. Furthermore, one of the grants officers is due to go on maternity leave in mid- March. The team aims to make up the shortfall by the end of June 2014, a total of 13 visits are already booked to take place by the end of the financial year.

127. In addition to cancellations of some of the officer-led visits, the second of the planned chair’s visits also fell foul of the tube strikes. Five members had been due to attend a visit to Galop (sexual and domestic violence priority) on 13 February. However, after consultation with members, it was decided to re-arrange the visit. Members will be informed of the date in due course.

8.4 Other programme management considerations

8.4.1 Grants programme internal audit

128. Following the BNRRN report and Daniel Review, presented to committee in February 2013, the internal audit team at the City of London Corporation undertook an audit of the grants programme in January and February 2014. The aim of the audit was to assess the extent to which the recommendations of the previous audit and Daniel Review had been implemented.

129. Working with the auditors, the grants team provided full access to programme records. The audit found that the recommendations had been fully implemented. As a result, the grants programme was given a substantial assurance rating, the highest available.

8.4.2 Borough Spread

130. At the November 2013 committee meeting, members asked to be provided with details of borough spread of activity. Full details are provided at Appendix 6 to Appendix 9. When interpreting the information, members are asked to note the principles of the 2013-15 grants programme.

- Commissioning services that deliver effectively and can meet the outcomes specified by London Councils, rather than funding organisations
- Commissioning services where there is clear evidence of need for services that complement borough and other services to support organisations that deliver services
- Commissioning services where it is economical and efficient to deliver services on a London wide basis or where mobility is key to delivery of a service to secure personal safety
- Commissioning services that cannot reasonably be delivered locally, at a borough or sub-regional level
- Commissioning services that work with statutory and non-statutory partners and contribute to meeting the objectives of the Equality Act 2010.

131. While all of these principles apply across all of the funded commissions, principle three is particularly relevant to note, especially in priorities one and two. Therefore, the extent to which it is possible to draw meaningful conclusions about ‘what my borough gets from the programme’ is limited.

132. In many cases, it is difficult to identify which borough beneficiaries come from. In some cases, borough could mean the place where someone grew up. In other cases, it could mean the borough where someone last resided. In others, it could mean the borough in which they accessed services, or it could mean the borough where a housing solution has been found through the intervention of the funded organisation.

133. The other consideration to note is the effect of central London with regard to activities funded under priority one. The impact of this is three-fold. First, more homeless people gravitate towards central London. This pushes populations up there. Second, homelessness charities have a larger presence in central London due to the higher numbers of homeless people. And finally, pressures on the affordability of housing tend to be more pronounced in central London, which increases levels of need there.

134. Members are also asked to note that in drawing up the programme priorities and subsequently negotiating funding agreements with providers, unlike previous programmes, no deliberate attempt has been made to ensure that every borough receives an equal amount of provision. Rather, have established that the organisations funded meet the priorities, officers have asked providers to demonstrate how the will ensure beneficiaries from each London borough are able to access services. Therefore, the resulting pattern of delivery is likely to be affected by levels of need and varies from specification to specification.

135. That said, activities have been delivered to beneficiaries from every London borough (noting the difficulties in assigning boroughs to beneficiaries) within each of the four priorities. This suggests that there is pan-London provision of services. Officers recognise that some members may wish to discuss further how to increase access for their “residents” to the services on offer. Where this is the case, officers are happy to work with members to make this happen.

9 Timetable and next steps

| March 2014 | Payments to providers (various) | | March 2014 | Monitoring visits (various) | | March 2014 | Monthly chair’s update meeting (TBC) | | March 2014 | Grants Committee (25 March) | | March 2014 | - month 9 budget report | | March 2014 | - thematic review - priority two | | April 2014 | Chair’s Priority Three visit to East Tenders (7 April) | Pre-election period begins Q4 returns due Annual reports due Monthly chair’s update meeting (TBC) Monitoring visits (various)

May 2014 Monthly chair’s update meeting (TBC) Monitoring visits (various)

June 2014 Monthly chair’s update meeting (TBC) Monitoring visits (various) Consultation on current grants programme to begin

July 2014 Monthly chair’s update meeting (TBC) Monitoring visits (various)

Recommendations

1. **Note** the results of the Red Amber Green (RAG) risk rating (91% of providers green, 9% of providers amber and no providers red) and approve actions suggested by officers in this regard (see paragraphs 2-12).

2. **Approve** suggested contractual changes to Solace Women's Aid's grant agreement (specification 2.2, sexual and domestic violence: advice, counselling, outreach, drop-in and support for access to services) (see paragraphs 37-47 and 55).

3. **Approve** suggested contractual changes to St Mungo Community Housing Association’s grant agreement (specification 3.4 ESF provision for people recovering from addiction) including a £126,500 reduction to the value of the contract (see paragraph 78).

4. **Approve** suggested contractual changes to the Citizen’s Trust’s grant agreement (specification 3.1a ESF provision for disabled parents) including a £126,500 reduction to the value of the contract (see paragraph 78).

5. **Approve** retaining the balance of £185,520 (£92,760 S.48 funding and £92,760 ESF) resulting from the reductions outlined in recommendations three and four to be used to buy additional outcomes from other providers within priority three later in the programming period (see paragraph 79).

6. **Note** the change in London Funders’ financial year to bring it in line with the Grants Committee’s financial year (see paragraph 109).

7. **Note** that the grants team will not meet the annual target of visiting each provider twice in the current financial year, but will make up the shortfall by the end of June 2014 (see paragraphs 125-127).

8. **Note** the provision of borough spread information (and limitations regarding interpretation of the data) and to contact the grants team if further action is required (see paragraphs 130-133). Appendices Appendix 1 Q3 RAG Risk Ratings Appendix 2 Priority 1 Outcome Definitions and Delivery against Target Q3 Appendix 3 Priority 2 Outcome Definitions and Delivery against Target Q3 Appendix 4 Priority 3 Outcome Definitions and Delivery against Target Q3 Appendix 5 Tender Education and Arts RAG Rating Performance Score Q3 Appendix 6 Borough Spread of Benefit Priority One Appendix 7 Borough Spread of Benefit Priority Two Appendix 8 Borough Spread of Benefit Priority Three Appendix 9 Borough Spread of Benefit Priority Four Appendix 10 Report submitted to the meeting of VAWG Coordinators (sexual and domestic violence borough leads) November 2013

Background papers 2013-15 Grants Programme, Grants Committee, 20 February 2013 Item 6, Grants Committee, 06 November 2013 Minutes, Grants Committee, 06 November 2013 Minutes, Grants Committee AGM, 10 July 2013

Financial Implications for London Councils Refer to Grants M9 forecast report (26 March Grants Committee agenda item six)

Legal Implications for London Councils None

Equalities Implications for London Councils London Councils' funded services provide support to people within all the protected characteristics (Equality Act 2010), and in particular targets groups highlighted as particularly hard to reach or more affected by the issues being tackled. Funded organisations are also required to submit equalities monitoring data, which can be collated across the grants scheme to provide data on the take up of services and gaps in provision to be addressed. The grants team will undertake an annual review.

## Appendix 1: Q3 RAG Risk Ratings

| Funding 2013-15 Strands | Organisation | Partners | Risk Rating 29 October 2013 | Risk Rating 19 February 2014 | Further Information | |-------------------------|--------------|----------|-----------------------------|-----------------------------|---------------------| | 1.1 | Stonewall Housing | Referral partners: Shelter, AdviceUK, Royal Association for Deaf People. | Green | Green | | | 1.1 | Women in Prison Ltd | | Amber | Green | | | 1.1 | Shelter - London Advice Services | Broadway Housing Association, (plus the project will be supported by a range of referral partners Family Mosaic, Genesis Housing Association, Peabody, P3, Royal Association for the Deaf (RAD), Southern Housing Group, Stonewall Housing Association) | Green | Green | | | 1.1 | St Mungo Community Housing Association | | Amber | Green | | | 1.1 | Thames Reach | Eaves Housing for Women, Addaction Drug and Alcohol Services | Green | Green | | | 1.1 | The Connection at St Martin's | | Green | Green | | | 1.2 | New Horizon Youth Centre | New Horizon Youth Centre, Alone in London, Depaul UK, Stonewall Housing. | Green | Green | | | 1.3 | Homeless Link | Shelter, DrugScope. | Green | Green | | | 2.1 | Tender Education and Arts | The Nia Project, Solace Women's Aid, Women and Girls Network (WGN), Southall Black Sisters Trust (SBS), Ashiana Network, Latin American Women's | Green | Green | | | Funding 2013-15 Strands | Organisation | Partners | Risk Rating 29 October 2013 | Risk Rating 19 February 2014 | Further Information | |------------------------|--------------|----------|-----------------------------|-----------------------------|---------------------| | | | Rights Service (LAWRS), Foundation For Women's Health Research & Development (FORWARD), Iranian and Kurdish Women Rights Organisation (IKWRO), Asian Women's Resource Centre (AWRC), IMECE Women's Centre, | | | | | 2.2 | Galop | Stonewall Housing, Pace, Broken Rainbow, Galop, London Lesbian and Gay Switchboard. | Green | Green | | | 2.2 | Women in Prison Ltd | | Green | Green | | | 2.2 | SignHealth | | Amber | Green | | | 2.2 | Solace Women's Aid | ASHIANA Network, Asian Women's Resource Centre (AWRC), Chinese Information & Advice Centre (CIAC), Ethnic Alcohol Counselling in Hounslow (EACH), Iranian and Kurdish Women Rights Organisation (IKWRO), IMECE Turkish Speaking Women's Group, Latin American Women's Rights Service (LAWRS), The Nia project, Rights of Women (ROW), Southall Black Sisters (SBS), Jewish Women's Aid (JWA), Women and Girls Network (WGN), Solace Women's Aid (SWA). | Green | Green | | | Funding 2013-15 Strands | Organisation | Partners | Risk Rating 29 October 2013 | Risk Rating 19 February 2014 | Further Information | |-------------------------|--------------|----------|-----------------------------|-----------------------------|---------------------| | 2.3 | Women's Aid Federation of England (Women's Aid) | Women's Aid, Refuge, Women & Girl's Network. | Green | Green | | | 2.4 | Eaves Housing for Women | | Green | Green | | | 2.4 | Ashiana Network | Ashiana Network, Solace Women's Aid, Nia. | Green | Green | | | 2.5 | Women's Resource Centre | Women's Resource Centre, AVA (Against Violence & Abuse), Imkaan, Respect, Rights of Women, Women and Girls Network. | Green | Green | | | 2.6 | Asian Women's Resource Centre | Southall Black Sisters Trust, FORWARD, IMECE Women's Centre, Women and Girls Network, IKWRO Women's Rights Organisation. | Green | Green | | | 2.6 | Domestic Violence Intervention Project | | Green | Green | | | 3.1a | The Citizen's Trust | London Skills Academy, The Camden Society | Amber | Green | | | 3.1b | Peter Bedford Housing Association | East Potential, Hillside Clubhouse, | Green | Green | | | 3.2 | MI ComputSolutions Incorporated | AFRICA ADVOCACY FOUNDATION, AMICUSHORIZON, RIPE ENTERPRISES | Green | Green | | | 3.2 | Paddington Development Trust (PDT) | Renaissance Skills Centre (RSC), Hammersmith & Fulham Volunteer Centre, Urban Partnership Group, Skills & Development Agency | Green | Amber | Paddington Development Trust’s RAG rating decreased from 75.65 (green) in Q2 to 69.82 (amber) in Q3. The drivers for this reduction are underperformance against target for numbers of people receiving six hours of support (67 delivered: 98 profiled) and people gaining employment on leaving provision (15 delivered: 25 profiled). | | Funding 2013-15 Strands | Organisation | Partners | Risk Rating 29 October 2013 | Risk Rating 19 February 2014 | Further Information | |------------------------|--------------|----------|-----------------------------|-----------------------------|---------------------| | | | | | | The provider has reported one of its partners has not been delivering well in Brent, Harrow and Merton. As a result, it has taken the sub-contract away from the partner in question and has reallocated outputs and outcomes amongst other partners, who have made contact with local job centres, borough officers (Harrow) and community and faith groups. They expect the results of this contact to lead to an increase in referrals to the project and subsequently an increase in the number of jobs. Officers do not recommend contractual changes at this stage. | | 3.2 | Urban Futures London Limited | The Selby Trust, Newlon Fusion, (Prevista) | Green | Green | | 3.3 | Hopscotch Asian Women's Centre | Refugee Women’s Association, The Citizen’s Trust | Amber | Green | | 3.3 | London Training and Employment Network (LTEN) | Crisis UK, East London Skills for Life (ELS), Havering Association of Voluntary and Community Organisations (HAVCO), Midaye Somali Women’s Development Network | Amber | Amber | | 3.3 | Redbridge Council for Voluntary Service | Widows & Orphans International, DABD | Green | Green | | 3.3 | Catalyst Gateway | East Potential (part of East Thames Group) | Green | Green | | 3.4 | St Mungo Community Housing Association | Foundation 66, AJ Associates | Amber | Amber | | 4 | Children England | Partnership for Young London, Race Equality | Green | Green | | Funding 2013-15 Strands | Organisation | Partners | Risk Rating 29 October 2013 | Risk Rating 19 February 2014 | Further Information | |------------------------|--------------|----------|-----------------------------|-----------------------------|---------------------| | | | | | | | | 4 | London Deaf & Disability Organisations CIC (Inclusion London) | Transport for All. | Green | Green | | | 4 | Advice UK | Law Centres Federation, Lasa. | Green | Green | | | 4 | London Voluntary Service Council | Race on the Agenda, Women's Resource Centre, Refugees in Effective and Active Partnerships, Lasa. | Green | Green | | | 4 | Age Concern London | Opening Doors Age UK, London Older People Advisory Group (LOPAG). | Green | Green | | | 4 | The Refugee Council | | Green | Green | |

## Appendix 2: Priority 1 Outcome Definitions and Delivery against Target Q3

| Outcome | Definition | Profile | Actual | Difference | Variance | |---------|------------|---------|--------|------------|----------| | **Specification 1.1 Homelessness Early Intervention and Prevention** | | | | | | | 1 | People/ families at risk of homelessness, who are homeless or living in insecure accommodation assisted to obtain suitable temporary or permanent accommodation | 458 | 452 | -6 | -1% | | 2 | People/ families successfully sustaining their tenancies for one year or more | 135 | 142 | 7 | 5% | | 3 | People have improved physical and mental health | 582 | 674 | 92 | 16% | | 4 | People have increased learning and improvements in life skills and employment and training opportunities | 153 | 163 | 10 | 7% | | 5 | People have increased levels of social interaction and reduced levels of isolation | 223 | 286 | 63 | 28% | | **Total All** | | 1551 | 1717 | 166 | 11% | | **Specification 1.2 Youth Homelessness** | | | | | | | 1 | Young people who are homeless or living in insecure accommodation obtain suitable temporary or permanent accommodation | 116 | 166 | 50 | 43% | | 2 | Young people successfully sustaining their tenancies for one year or more | 0 | 0 | 0 | #DIV/0! | | 3 | Young people have improved health and mental health | 272 | 275 | 3 | 1% | | 4 | Young people have increased learning and improvements in life skills and employment and training opportunities | 98 | 145 | 47 | 48% | | 5 | Young people within the protected equalities groups with enhanced knowledge of tackling homelessness | 931 | 1714 | 783 | 84% | | **Total All** | | 1417 | 2300 | 883 | 62% | | **Specification 1.3 Support Services to Homelessness Voluntary Sector Organisations** | | | | | | | 1 | Frontline organisations better able to deliver high quality housing provision support to the protected equalities groups and better able to deliver well informed specialist services, advice and specialist housing and social welfare advocacy and representation for and to the following: - Black, Asian, minority ethnic, refugee and migrant groups. - Women - Young and older people - Lesbian, gay, transgender and bisexual groups. - Deaf and disabled groups. | 40 | 30 | -10 | -25% | | 2 | Frontline organisations better able to raise issues of housing discrimination and trends in housing provision for the above equalities groups strategically together and with | 0 | 44 | 44 | |

______________________________________________________________________

12 See footnote for explanation of profiled figures for this specification. | Outcome | Definition | Profile | Actual | Difference | Variance | |---------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------|--------|------------|----------| | 3 | boroughs through sharing good practice, knowledge and expertise. This will include frontline organisations facilitated to contribute to information and data sharing on homelessness. | | | | | | 4 | Frontline organisations that support the protected equalities groups identified within this specification better able to secure funding and resources and to develop the capacity of their organisation. | 0 | 16 | 16 | | | 4 | Frontline homelessness organisations better equipped to respond to the diversity of equalities needs | 0 | 45 | 45 | | | Total | All | 40 | 135 | 95 | 238% |

### Appendix 3: Priority 2 Outcome Definitions and Delivery against Target Q3

| Outcome | Definition | Profile | Actual | Difference | Variance | |---------|------------|---------|--------|------------|----------| | **Specification 2.1: Sexual and Domestic Violence Prevention** | | | | | | | 1 | Children and young people view sexual and domestic violence as unacceptable and can identify the warning signs and myths. | 467 | 361 | -106 | -23% | | 2 | Children and young people can identify what positive respectful relationships based on equal power are and have increased confidence and empowerment enabling positive choices to be made. | 3168 | 2090 | -1078 | -34% | | 3 | Children and young people can identify where to seek support/ their rights/ how to disclose | 550 | 377 | -173 | -31% | | 4 | Children and young people have respectful relationships with their peers. | 165 | 313 | 148 | 90% | | 5 | Professionals understand the facts, myths and risk factors relating to sexual and domestic violence (in particular issues that affect children and young people such as sexual exploitation, trafficking, FGM and sexual violence in gang settings) and feel able to address issues with children and young people | 238 | 415 | 177 | 74% | | 6 | Children and young people are more aware of sexual and domestic violence in relation to the eight protected characteristics (for example violence in same sex relationships, FGM, forced marriage) | 440 | 329 | -111 | -25% | | **Total** | **All** | **5028** | **3885** | **-1143** | **-23%** |

| Specification 2.2: Sexual and Domestic Violence Advice, Counselling, Outreach, Drop-in and Support for Access to Services | | | | | | | 1 | Users better able to access appropriate services | 2343 | 3116 | 773 | 33% | | 2 | Reduced levels/ repeat victimisation of sexual and domestic violence | 2059 | 1937 | -122 | -6% | | 3 | Service providers are better informed of beneficiaries’ needs and service users are enabled to communicate their needs and views to service providers/decision makers | 2731 | 1093 | -1638 | -60% | | 4 | Service users have improved self-esteem, motivation, confidence, emotional health and well-being and physical health and are able to rebuild their lives, moving to independence. | 2151 | 1387 | -764 | -36% | | 5 | Beneficiaries more able to make safe choices leading to a reduction in occurrence and/or effects of violence, sexual abuse and repeat victimisation. | 3144 | 835 | -2309 | -73% | | 6 | More informed life choices to enable users to rebuild their lives and move to independence: - health (including sexual health, mental health, drug and alcohol support) - employment - legal/ criminal justice system - education | 2046 | 1693 | -353 | -17% | | Outcome | Definition | Profile | Actual | Difference | Variance | |---------|------------|---------|--------|------------|----------| | - training | - immigration | - housing | - children's services | | | | 7 | People from the protected characteristics have access to advice in a way that meets their needs. | 2677 | 893 | -1784 | -67% | | **Total** | **All** | **17151** | **10954** | **-6197** | **-36%** |

**Specification 2.3: Helpline and Co-ordinated Access to Refuge Provision**

| Specification | Outcome | Profile | Actual | Difference | Variance | |---------------|---------|---------|--------|------------|----------| | 1 | Increased access to emergency refuge accommodation for people escaping domestic violence. | 100 | 95 | -5 | -5% | | 2 | Improved data collection of service users and service provision resulting in increased information on sexual and domestic violence services in London and beneficiaries needs. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0% | | 3 | Service users are supported to move to a position of safety. | 75 | 95 | 20 | 27% | | 4 | London boroughs receive dedicated support in accessing refuge provision for service users affected by domestic violence. Statutory providers, friends, family and voluntary agencies are better able to support those experiencing domestic violence. | 8 | 8 | 0 | 0% | | 5 | People with the protected characteristics (2010 Equalities Act) are able to access support that meets their needs. | 100 | 95 | -5 | -5% | | **Total** | **All** | **283** | **293** | **10** | **4%** |

**Specification 2.4: Emergency Refuge Accommodation that Offers Services to Meet the Needs of Specific Groups**

| Specification | Outcome | Profile | Actual | Difference | Variance | |---------------|---------|---------|--------|------------|----------| | 1 | Safety from immediate danger from perpetrators through specialist emergency accommodation. | 17 | 21 | 4 | 24% | | 2 | Increased access to specialist support and culturally specific provision (such as drug and alcohol support, support with mental health, support to exit prostitution. Culturally specific provision to include so called 'honour' based violence, forced marriage, female genital mutilation, early marriage, language and culture, immigration and no recourse to public funds). | 21 | 17 | -4 | -19% | | 3 | Increased confidence, self-esteem, mental health and increased ability to deal with the effects of domestic violence | 12 | 12 | 0 | 0% | | 4 | Independent lives rebuilt, through improved independent living skills, knowledge and access to benefits, entitlements, supported/permanent housing | 10 | 17 | 7 | | | 5 | Relationship rebuilt with children where damaged, make safe choices and access support for their children. | 7 | 21 | 14 | 200% | | 6 | Removal of barriers in accessing services for people with the protected characteristics of the 2010 Equalities Act | 17 | 28 | 11 | 65% | | Outcome | Definition | Profile | Actual | Difference | Variance | |---------|------------|---------|--------|------------|----------| | Total | All | 84 | 116 | 32 | 38% | | **Specification 2.5: Support Services to Sexual and Domestic Violence Voluntary Sector Organisations** | | | | | | | 1 | Frontline providers are effective and sustainable organisations (financial management, governance, recruitment/workforce, ICT, premises, fundraising/ tenders/contracts, recruitment or board members) | 40 | 65 | 25 | 63% | | 2 | Frontline providers able to deliver improved services to meet their clients' needs (deliver, monitor, evaluate and adapt) | 12 | 83 | 71 | 592% | | 3 | Frontline organisations are able to develop effective partnerships and work with other voluntary and community organisations or statutory providers, linking to local services and networks. | 50 | 84 | 34 | 68% | | 4 | Frontline organisations able to better represent their service users and ensure they are up to date with policy changes. (Including supporting the sector to collate and analyse data on need) | 25 | 75 | 50 | 200% | | 5 | Frontline organisations better able to achieve the three aims of the 2010 Equalities Act | 20 | 50 | 30 | 150% | | **Total** | **All** | **147** | **357** | **210** | **143%** | | **Specification 2.6: Specifically Targeted Services FGM, Honour Based Violence (HBV), Forced Marriage and other Harmful Practices** | | | | | | | 1 | Service users have improved self-esteem, confidence and emotional health and well being | 7 | 6 | -1 | -14% | | 2 | Service users have a better understanding of the support options available to them and are more aware of their rights and entitlements | 19 | 387 | 368 | 1937% | | 3 | Service users have an increased ability to communicate their needs and views to service providers | 152 | 381 | 229 | 151% | | 4 | Service users are able to make safe choices and exit violent situations/ service users have enhanced coping strategies through risk assessment and safeguarding | 148 | 212 | 64 | 43% | | 5 | Service users have improved life skills to help them rebuild their lives and move to independence | 5 | 4 | -1 | -20% | | **Total** | **All** | **331** | **990** | **659** | **199%** |

## Appendix 4: Priority 3 Outcome Definitions and Delivery against Target Q3

| Outcome | Definition | Profile | Actual | Difference | Variance | |---------|------------|---------|--------|------------|----------| | **Specification 3.1a: Disabled Parents** | | | | | | | 1 | 6+ hours of one-to-one support | 132 | 114 | -18 | -14% | | 2 | Completing Work or Volunteering placement | 7 | 7 | 0 | 0% | | 3 | Gaining Employment within 13 weeks of leaving | 29 | 28 | -1 | -3% | | 4 | Sustaining employment for 26 weeks | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0% | | 5 | Progression into education or training | 23 | 19 | -4 | -17% | | **Total** | **All** | **191** | **168** | **-23** | **-12%** | | **Specification 3.1b: People with Mental Health Needs** | | | | | | | 1 | 6+ hours of one-to-one support | 165 | 161 | -4 | -2% | | 2 | Completing Work or Volunteering placement | 75 | 55 | -20 | -27% | | 3 | Gaining Employment within 13 weeks of leaving | 45 | 27 | -18 | -40% | | 4 | Sustaining employment for 26 weeks | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1% | | 5 | Progression into education or training | 45 | 19 | -26 | -58% | | **Total** | **All** | **330** | **263** | **-67** | **-20%** | | **Specification 3.2: People from Ethnic Groups with Low Labour Market Participation Rates** | | | | | | | 1 | 6+ hours of one-to-one support | 402 | 401 | -1 | 0% | | 2 | Completing Work or Volunteering placement | 59 | 56 | -3 | -5% | | 3 | Gaining Employment within 13 weeks of leaving | 132 | 127 | -5 | -4% | | 4 | Sustaining employment for 26 weeks | 5 | 18 | 13 | 13% | | 5 | Progression into education or training | 75 | 43 | -32 | -43% | | **Total** | **All** | **673** | **645** | **-28** | **-4%** | | **Specification 3.3: Women Facing Barriers to Employment** | | | | | | | 1 | 6+ hours of one-to-one support | 803 | 725 | -78 | -10% | | 2 | Completing Work or Volunteering placement | 228 | 160 | -68 | -30% | | 3 | Gaining Employment within 13 weeks of leaving | 189 | 147 | -42 | -22% | | 4 | Sustaining employment for 26 weeks | 11 | 15 | 4 | 4% | | 5 | Progression into education or training | 162 | 103 | -59 | -36% | | **Total** | **All** | **1393** | **1150** | **-243** | **-17%** | | **Specification 3.4: People Recovering from Drug and Alcohol Misuse** | | | | | | | 1 | 6+ hours of one-to-one support | 93 | 42 | -51 | -55% | | 2 | Completing Work or Volunteering placement | 45 | 6 | -39 | -87% | | 3 | Gaining Employment within 13 weeks of leaving | 33 | 14 | -19 | -58% | | Outcome | Definition | Profile | Actual | Difference | Variance | |---------|------------------------------------------------|---------|--------|------------|----------| | 4 | Sustaining employment for 26 weeks | 0 | 0 | 0 | | | 5 | Progression into education or training | 27 | 8 | -19 | -70% | | Total | All | 198 | 70 | -128 | -65% |

## Appendix 5: Tender Education and Arts RAG Rating Performance Score Q3

| KPA | Indicator | RAG rating points | Total available | RAG rating guidance | |----------------------|------------------------------------------------|-------------------|-----------------|---------------------| | Contract performance | Delivery against cumulative targets | 47.73 | 60 | Green 76% 100 points | | | Self assessment of quality | 6.75 | 10 | Amber 51% 75.99 points | | | Participant satisfaction | 7.49 | 10 | Red 0% 50.99 points | | Contract compliance | Contract compliance | 19.20 | 20 | | | | RAG rating | 81.17 | 100 | |

### Delivery against cumulative targets (start with primary target)

#### CONTRACT PERFORMANCE POINTS

| Primary outcomes | Total pts available | % Delivery | RAG rating points | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------|------------|-------------------| | Number of new service users (cumulative) | 8.57 | 70% | 6.025416854 | | 2,992 (over two years) participants can identify at least one early warning sign of an abusive relationship - 1 | 8.57 | 77% | 6.625879474 | | 18,944 (over 2 years) understand what a healthy relationship is and can now make positive relationship choices | 8.57 | 66% | 5.654761905 | | 3,520 (1,570 in Year 1 & 1950 in Year 2) know where to disclose | 8.57 | 69% | 5.875324675 | | 1,056 (471 in Year 1 & 585 in Year 2) report an improvement in their peer relationships | 8.57 | 190% | 8.571428571 | | 1,029 (651 in Yr 1 & 378 in Yr 2) are more knowledgeable about the complex nature of sexual & domestic violence | 8.57 | 174% | 8.571428571 | | 2,816 (1,256 in Year 1 & 1,560 in Year 2) recall criminal statistics of different forms of violence to protected | 8.57 | 75% | 6.409090909 |

Number of contract targets: 7

| Profile | Actual | % | RAG rating points | |---------|--------|---|-------------------| | 60 | 20878 | 103% | 47.73333096 | Barnet

Bexley

Brent

Bromley

Camden

City Of London

Croydon

Ealing

Enfield

Greenwich

Hackney

Hammersmith

Haringey

Harrow

Havering

Hillingdon

Hounslow

Islington

Kensington And Chelsea

Kingston Upon Thames

Lambeth

Lewisham

Merton

Newham

Redbridge

Richmond Upon Thames

Southwark

Sutton

Tower Hamlets

Waltham Forest

Wandsworth

Westminster

Grand Total

Unknown

Row Labels 1.1 Homelessness: Early intervention and prevention Number of new users (quarterly actual) Number of new users (annual target) % Achieved People have improved physical and mental health People have increased learning and improvements i People have increased levels of social interaction an People within the protected equalities groups have i People/ families at risk of homelessness, who are h People/ families successfully sustaining their tenan

Barking and Dagenham

Appendix 6: Borough Spread of Benefit Priority One

242 444 55% 9 10 39 23 43 1

408 540 76% 16 8 39 34 36 3

75 289 26% 1 2 3 4 6 0

350 545 64% 10 11 72 44 57 3

186 433 43% 3 5 9 29 20 0

779 792 98% 19 23 68 69 86 0

24 249 10% 3 3 4 8 13 0

284 467 61% 13 4 31 38 53 3

318 565 56% 12 14 41 40 51 0

252 445 57% 6 7 38 15 30 2

333 515 65% 27 16 20 39 29 2

711 959 74% 20 25 91 102 115 1

765 732 105% 9 17 41 52 64 3

461 674 68% 13 22 65 41 58 4

168 404 42% 17 4 17 15 23 0

163 281 58% 2 2 17 17 16 0

230 325 71% 7 2 11 26 29 0

295 477 62% 21 2 23 25 35 1

606 563 108% 18 19 63 47 85 4

219 419 52% 7 10 27 30 32 1

61 326 19% 6 2 4 10 5 0

657 849 77% 53 17 67 120 72 5

447 773 58% 27 19 37 86 50 2

180 284 63% 7 5 10 16 15 0

1060 761 139% 59 20 36 90 114 12

134 319 42% 3 4 28 14 21 0

108 266 41% 16 3 11 7 10 0

342 684 50% 57 23 58 74 63 2

66 294 22% 3 2 7 12 15 2

365 558 65% 13 17 42 63 73 1

343 510 67% 14 6 25 26 36 0

266 480 55% 51 9 50 48 40 2

493 598 82% 67 37 95 153 96 2

11391 16820 n/a 609 370 1189 1417 1491 56

940 0 n/a 19 0 15 118 490 2

1.2 Youth homelessness Number of new users (quarterly actual) 50 58 Number of new users (annual target) 55 49 % Achieved 91% 118% Young people have improved health and mental hea 13 14 Young people have increased learning and improvem 7 8 Young people successfully sustaining their tenancies for one year or more Young people who are homeless or living in insecur 5 10 Young people within the protected equalities groups 54 68

25 25 100% 4 1

74 83 89% 21 15

26 245 11% 12 2

202 264 77% 98 80

12 15 80% 1 2

40 328 12% 4 3

51 37 138% 8 1

187 138 136% 23 10

61 56 109% 12 6

202 294 69% 46 23

79 71 111% 31 18

348 420 83% 43 24

20 22 91% 4 3

14 79 18% 1 0

15 29 52% 1 0

16 20 80% 1 3

396 209 189% 72 43

30 45 67% 7 5

10 44 23% 0 0

101 139 73% 41 25

102 78 131% 27 15

18 58 31% 4 1

128 369 35% 20 11

61 150 41% 11 5

16 17 94% 1 1

109 120 91% 39 18

42 11 382% 4 1

57 128 45% 18 7

217 596 36% 18 5

49 32 153% 18 6

44 82 54% 16 6

2860 4308 n/a 633 355

248 0 n/a 91 86

2 23

9 84

1 27

37 234

1 9

6 52

4 46

13 196

8 57

24 209

12 89

26 353

3 21

1 12

4 16

4 17

34 414

7 29

0 5

18 106

15 111

4 19

11 138

1 60

0 13

30 116

2 40

9 63

16 220

14 64

11 47

342 3012

32 277

278 240

0 0

45 88 44 16

0 0 0 0

1.3 Support services to homelessness voluntary sector organisations Number of organisations supported (quarterly actual) Number of organisations supported (annual target) % Achieved Frontline homelessness organisations better equipped to respond to the diversity of equalities needs Frontline organisations better able to deliver high quality housing provision support to the protected equalities groups and better able to deliver well informed specialist services, advice and specialist housing and social welfare advocacy and representation for and to the following: - Black, Asian, minority ethnic, refugee and migrant groups. - Women- Young and older people- Lesbian, gay, transgender an Frontline organisations better able to raise issues of housing discrimination and trends in housing provision for the above equalities groups strategically together and with boroughs through sharing good practice, knowledge and expertise. This will include frontline organisations facilitated to contribute to information and data sharing on homelessness. Frontline organisations that support the protected equalities groups identified within this specification better able to secure funding and resources and to develop the capacity of their organisation.

Members are asked to note that borough spread figures for capacity building have not been provided. However, officers can confirm that services cover providers delivering in every London borough.

### Appendix 7: Borough Spread of Priority Two

#### 2.1 Sexual and Domestic Violence Prevention

| Borough | Number of new users (target) | Number of new users (actual) | % Achieved | |---------|-----------------------------|-----------------------------|------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Brent | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Camden | 20 | 15 | 75% | | City of London | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Croydon | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Ealing | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Enfield | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Greenwich | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Hammersmith | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Harrow | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Havering | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Hillingdon | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Hounslow | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Newham | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Southwark | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Sutton | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Westminster | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Grand Total | 20 | 15 | 75% |

#### 2.2 Sexual and Domestic Violence: Advice, counselling, outreach, drop-in and support for access to services

| Borough | Number of new users (target) | Number of new users (actual) | % Achieved | |---------|-----------------------------|-----------------------------|------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Brent | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Camden | 20 | 15 | 75% | | City of London | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Croydon | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Ealing | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Enfield | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Greenwich | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Hammersmith | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Harrow | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Havering | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Hillingdon | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Hounslow | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Newham | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Southwark | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Sutton | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Westminster | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Grand Total | 20 | 15 | 75% |

#### 2.3 Sexual and Domestic Violence: Improved data collection of service users and service provision resulting in increased information on sexual and domestic violence services in London and beneficiaries needs.

| Borough | Number of new users (target) | Number of new users (actual) | % Achieved | |---------|-----------------------------|-----------------------------|------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Brent | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Camden | 20 | 15 | 75% | | City of London | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Croydon | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Ealing | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Enfield | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Greenwich | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Hammersmith | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Harrow | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Havering | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Hillingdon | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Hounslow | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Newham | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Southwark | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Sutton | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Westminster | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Grand Total | 20 | 15 | 75% |

#### 2.4 Emergency refuge accommodation that offers services to meet the needs of specific groups

| Borough | Number of new users (target) | Number of new users (actual) | % Achieved | |---------|-----------------------------|-----------------------------|------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Brent | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Camden | 20 | 15 | 75% | | City of London | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Croydon | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Ealing | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Enfield | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Greenwich | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Hammersmith | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Harrow | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Havering | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Hillingdon | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Hounslow | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Newham | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Southwark | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Sutton | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Westminster | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Grand Total | 20 | 15 | 75% |

#### 2.5 People with the protected characteristics (2010 Equality Act) have access to improved services.

| Borough | Number of new users (target) | Number of new users (actual) | % Achieved | |---------|-----------------------------|-----------------------------|------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Brent | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Camden | 20 | 15 | 75% | | City of London | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Croydon | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Ealing | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Enfield | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Greenwich | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Hammersmith | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Harrow | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Havering | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Hillingdon | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Hounslow | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Newham | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Southwark | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Sutton | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Westminster | 20 | 15 | 75% | | Grand Total | 20 | 15 | 75% |

Members are asked to note that in priority 1.2, the provider is working on a borough by borough basis and will reach every borough over the course of the two year grant. Also, borough spread figures for capacity building have not been provided. However, officers can confirm that services cover providers delivering in every London borough.

### Appendix 8: Borough Spread of Benefit Priority Three

#### 1.4a Parents with long-term work limiting health conditions

| Borough | Benefit Priority Three | Number of new users (quarterly actual) | Number of new users (annual target) | |---------|------------------------|----------------------------------------|-------------------------------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Barnet | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Bexley | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Brent | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Bromley | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Camden | 0 | 0 | 0 | | City Of London | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Croydon | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Ealing | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Enfield | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Greenwich | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Hackney | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Hammersmith | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Haringey | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Harrow | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Havering | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Hillingdon | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Hounslow | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Islington | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Kensington And Chelsea | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Kingston Upon Thames | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Lambeth | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Lewisham | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Merton | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Newham | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Redbridge | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Richmond Upon Thames | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Southwark | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Sutton | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Tower Hamlets | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Waltham Forest | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Wandsworth | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Westminster | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Grand Total | 0 | 0 | 0 |

#### 1.4b Mental Health

| Borough | Benefit Priority Three | Number of new users (quarterly actual) | Number of new users (annual target) | |---------|------------------------|----------------------------------------|-------------------------------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Barnet | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Bexley | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Brent | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Bromley | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Camden | 0 | 0 | 0 | | City Of London | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Croydon | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Ealing | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Enfield | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Greenwich | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Hackney | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Hammersmith | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Haringey | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Harrow | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Havering | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Hillingdon | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Hounslow | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Islington | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Kensington And Chelsea | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Kingston Upon Thames | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Lambeth | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Lewisham | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Merton | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Newham | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Redbridge | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Richmond Upon Thames | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Southwark | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Sutton | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Tower Hamlets | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Waltham Forest | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Wandsworth | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Westminster | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Grand Total | 0 | 0 | 0 |

#### 1.4c Women with Low Rates of Labour Market Participation

| Borough | Benefit Priority Three | Number of new users (quarterly actual) | Number of new users (annual target) | |---------|------------------------|----------------------------------------|-------------------------------------| | Barking and Dagenham | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Barnet | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Bexley | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Brent | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Bromley | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Camden | 0 | 0 | 0 | | City Of London | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Croydon | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Ealing | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Enfield | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Greenwich | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Hackney | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Hammersmith | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Haringey | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Harrow | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Havering | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Hillingdon | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Hounslow | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Islington | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Kensington And Chelsea | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Kingston Upon Thames | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Lambeth | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Lewisham | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Merton | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Newham | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Redbridge | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Richmond Upon Thames | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Southwark | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Sutton | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Tower Hamlets | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Waltham Forest | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Wandsworth | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Westminster | 0 | 0 | 0 | | Grand Total | 0 | 0 | 0 |

## Appendix 9: Borough Spread of Benefit Priority Four

| Row Labels | Barking and Dagenham | Barnet | Bexley | Brent | Bromley | Camden | City Of London | Croydon | Ealing | Enfield | Greenwich | Hackney | Hammersmith | Haringey | Harrow | Havering | Hillingdon | Hounslow | Islington | Kensington And Chelsea | Kingston Upon Thames | Lambeth | Lewisham | Merton | Mitcham | Richmond Upon Thames | Southwark | Sutton | Tower Hamlets | Waltham Forest | Wandsworth | Westminster | Greenwich | |------------|----------------------|--------|--------|-------|---------|--------|----------------|---------|--------|---------|-----------|---------|-------------|---------|--------|---------|-----------|---------|-----------|----------------------|----------------------|---------|-----------|--------|--------|----------------------|---------|--------|----------------------|----------------------|---------|-----------|--------|--------| | Number of new users (quarterly actual) | 123 | 143 | 58 | 103 | 70 | 375 | 61 | 204 | 164 | 123 | 171 | 293 | 150 | 230 | 106 | 67 | 70 | 74 | 454 | 183 | 64 | 344 | 103 | 107 | 209 | 79 | 64 | 356 | 62 | 291 | 135 | 107 | 256 | 5548 | | Number of new users (annual target) | 73 | 142 | 71 | 144 | 57 | 297 | 45 | 131 | 120 | 113 | 124 | 240 | 127 | 179 | 82 | 82 | 72 | 78 | 307 | 127 | 60 | 240 | 132 | 91 | 164 | 82 | 82 | 256 | 82 | 252 | 117 | 103 | 175 | 4623 | | % Achieved | 168% | 201% | 80% | 127% | 85% | 126% | 100% | 150% | 120% | 109% | 140% | 119% | 109% | 100% | 115% | 82% | 100% | 95% | 124% | 132% | 79% | 139% | 147% | 112% | 127% | 90% | 78% | 130% | 70% | 107% | 122% | 104% | 147% | n/a | | Frontline organisations or organisations supporting | 1 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 19 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 13 | 25 | 7 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 17 | 4 | 26 | 6 | 10 | 14 | 6 | 10 | 11 | 2 | 2 | 14 | 5 | 28 | 5 | 6 | 17 | 298 | | Increased ability of voluntary and community organ | 32 | 18 | 11 | 22 | 22 | 35 | 10 | 16 | 37 | 15 | 25 | 24 | 27 | 14 | 14 | 6 | 29 | 28 | 74 | 18 | 14 | 43 | 48 | 17 | 38 | 17 | 8 | 31 | 13 | 27 | 23 | 18 | 28 | 810 | | The voluntary sector’s role and capacity is understood | 4 | 13 | 9 | 13 | 7 | 20 | 9 | 23 | 15 | 12 | 18 | 24 | 10 | 12 | 7 | 1 | 24 | 9 | 65 | 17 | 16 | 27 | 13 | 13 | 27 | 14 | 10 | 23 | 7 | 20 | 13 | 11 | 21 | 551 |

1. Introduction This report sets out the findings of a recent survey of borough VAWG co-ordinators. It has the following objectives:

- Improve information for borough officers about the services being funded
- Improve information for funded projects about borough requirements
- Act as a starting point for discussion at the VAWG co-ordinator group meeting on 3 December 2013
- Ensure that activities funded under priority two (sexual and domestic violence) of London Councils’ grant scheme provide boroughs with services that meet their needs
- Set out a number of recommendations to assist with the above (set out below).

Feedback from the survey is generally positive. Most respondents welcomed the services on offer. However, a number of issues were highlighted and initial recommendations are presented below. These are provided as the basis for discussion at the VAWG co-ordinator group meeting on 3 December 2013.

Given the nature of this report, readers are asked to note that it focuses mostly on areas where further work is required and not so much on areas that are working well. London Councils would like to note the significant steps being taken by all funded organisations and the Ascent partnership in particular in rising to the challenge set by the grants committee for better co-ordination of services. It is hoped that the recommendations contained in the report will make a contribution to enhancing co-ordinated and relevant service delivery.

Recommendation applicable to

General

Recommendation

Ascent partnership to consider setting out a single point of contact for each borough covering all of the strands. General

Funded organisations to review borough comments related to usefulness, contact and referral and take appropriate steps to address issues raised.

2.1 Prevention

Tender make contact with those boroughs that are not aware of the service. Consider doing this through a single point of contact for the Ascent partnership if practicable.

2.1 Prevention

Tender to clarify the scope of the project and which services are covered by London Councils’ grant and which require additional payment.

2.2 Advice, counselling, outreach and drop-in.

Sign Health to increase general awareness raising activities and Galop and Women in Prison to target boroughs that have indicated they are not aware of services.

2.3 Helpline and Co-ordinated Access to Refuge Provision

Women’s Aid and partners consider how best to make access via email more readily available where appropriate.

2.4 Specialist Emergency Refuge Provision

Ashiana and Eaves Housing for Women to redouble efforts at raising awareness of service and access routes.

2.5 Support Services to the Sector

Women’s Resource Centre to consider providing seminars and briefing sessions on a quadrant or sub-regional basis.

2.5 Support Services to the Sector

Women’s Resource Centre to clarify what provision is open to borough officers.

2.6 Harmful Practices

Both Asian Women’s Resource Centre and in particular DVIP are recommended to take steps to increase awareness of the services amongst borough officers.

London Councils

London Councils will ensure that for future funding rounds consultation is done with each borough to clarify service needs and single points of contact.

Borough officers

To familiarise themselves with the Ascent partnership table presented at Annex A and note that the following organisations are not Ascent partners:

Specification 2.2 – Advice Counselling, Outreach and Drop-in o Sign Health o GALOP o Women in Prison

Specification 2.4 – Specialist Emergency Refuge Provision o Eaves Housing for Women

Specification 2.6 – Harmful Practices o DVIP

Borough officers

To give consideration to the scale of some of the services, particularly refuge provision and the realism of access for women from every borough. 2. Background Between September and October, London Councils received feedback from a number of borough VAWG co-ordinators and funded projects regarding progress with commissioned activities. A number of common issues emerged. These included:

- A requirement to improve linkages between London Councils’ commissioned projects and borough networks and procedures;
- A need to ensure that activities offered by commissioned projects complemented and did not duplicate existing borough services;
- A more streamlined approach to communicating with borough officers that did not place undue demands on their time and made it clearer who was delivering what;
- A sense from providers that they were making efforts to engage, but that did not have a clear picture of borough requirements and that information that had been provided about services on offer had not always been acknowledged.

As a first step in addressing these issues, London Councils’ officers surveyed borough officers to get a clearer idea of their views. This report presents the findings of the survey to funded projects and VAWG co-ordinators with the intention of developing effective approaches to delivery that meet local needs (within resource constraints).

The survey covered each strand of funding and detailed the eleven lead organisations involved in delivery against each of the following:

- **Specification 2.1 – Prevention**
  - Tender Arts and Education
- **Specification 2.2 – Advice Counselling, Outreach and Drop-in**
  - Solace
  - Sign Health
  - GALOP
  - Women in Prison
- **Specification 2.3 – Helpline and Co-ordinated Access to Refuge Provision**
  - Women’s Aid
- **Specification 2.4 – Specialist Emergency Refuge Provision**
  - Ashiana Network
  - Eaves Housing for Women
- **Specification 2.5 – Support Services to the Sector**
  - Women’s Resource Centre
- **Specification 2.6 – Harmful Practices**
  - Asian Women’s Resource Centre
  - DVIP

The survey covered a number of areas; including the following:

- Awareness of the availability of the service in the borough
- The extent to which the service is useful
- Gaps that exist within the borough which the London Councils’ commissions could fill within the remit of their provision
- Whether or not the provider had made contact
- Whether or not the borough had taken up services
- Where services were not taken up, why this was the case
- Feedback on how contact could be improved
- The names of relevant officers with whom the providers should make contact
- Other comments

3. Analysis There were a relatively high number of borough officers (22) who started the survey. However, the numbers that answered every question varied and tended to reduce as the survey progressed.

It should be noted that the responses given have not been shared with any of the funded organisations prior to circulation of this paper. As a result, they have not had the chance to comment on the findings. Therefore, it may be possible that in some cases, where less positive comments have been made by respondents, funded organisations may consider that they have addressed some of the issues highlighted. Readers are asked to note that the purpose of this paper is to highlight borough officers’ perceptions of the services on offer, as a means to improving local coverage and access. Therefore comments made by borough officers should be seen in this light.

The remainder of this section considers some of the general issues that were highlighted by respondents and then considers issues relating to each of the specifications.

a. General Issues As expected, communications were mentioned by a number of respondents. There appeared to be a lack of clarity about what was being offered through each strand and by whom. Officers believe that there is also some confusion regarding how and by whom services are marketed. For example, some marketing material refers to the London VAWG Consortium, some to the Ascent project, and some to the individual organisations involved.

This situation seems to be heightened by the fact that five of the organisations funded by London Councils are not members of the VAWG Consortium / Ascent project. In order to clarify the position, these are listed below:

- **Specification 2.2 – Advice Counselling, Outreach and Drop-in**
  - Sign Health
  - GALOP
  - Women in Prison
- **Specification 2.4 – Specialist Emergency Refuge Provision**
  - Eaves Housing for Women
- **Specification 2.6 – Harmful Practices**
  - DVIP (Al-Aman)

Annex A provides a full list of Ascent members and the relevant strands under which they are delivering.

A number of respondents also suggested that one way to overcome this issue would be to have a single point of contact for the Ascent partnership for each borough covering all of the strands.

It should be noted that apart from communications, none of the other issues listed in section two of this report (poor linkages between boroughs networks and procedures or duplication of services) appeared to be general issues that applied across the majority of boroughs or specifications. However, where these issues were mentioned, they are covered below.

The survey also revealed that respondents generally feel that services are of use, with 77% of respondents describing them as very useful or useful. b. Specification 2.1 – Prevention

i. Overview

The prevention strand is led by Tender Arts and Education as part of the Ascent partnership and is supported by 10 partners (see Annex A). Between 13 and 16 responses were provided to the questions related the prevention strand.

ii. Awareness

Amongst the 16 respondents to the question on awareness, 12 (75%), stated that they were aware that the service was being provided in the borough. Four respondents (25%) were not aware. This suggests that levels of awareness are generally high, but that more work is needed to increase visibility. London Councils recommends that Tender make contact with those boroughs that were not aware of the service. However, that they consider doing this through a single point of contact for the Ascent partnership if practicable.

iii. Usefulness

Amongst the 15 respondents to the question on usefulness, 10 (67%), stated that they considered the service to be very useful for their borough. Two respondents (13%) thought it useful, two respondents (13%) somewhat useful and one respondent (7%) not at all useful.

For the two respondents that commented on why they scored the service somewhat useful or not at all useful, the reasons given were similar. In one case, Merton, the borough officer was not aware of what the provider was doing within her borough. And in the other, Tower Hamlets, the borough officer had not received contact from the project, despite attempts to contact the organisation.

The findings suggest that levels of awareness are generally high, and that in general Tender is making good links. However, in a limited number of boroughs more work is needed to increase visibility and awareness of what’s on offer. iv. Gaps

Ten of 11 respondents suggested that there were gaps in borough provision that could be filled by this service. The following gaps were suggested:

| Borough | Gap | |--------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------| | Barnet | General gaps in service provision | | Bromley | Training both professionals and young people would be very useful. | | Ealing | The issues highlighted by the work particularly in relation to girls and gangs make this extremely relevant for the borough. | | Haringey | Prevention work starting at primary school level | | Harrow | Prevention work in schools particularly, schools for those with learning difficulties and special needs. | | Islington | Peer mentoring | | Lewisham | Prevention work in schools | | Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames | Counselling services education workshops to young people | | Tower Hamlets | This service could support our new training and awareness programme but, as discussed above, they have been difficult to approach. | | Waltham Forest | Legal advice |

v. Contact and referrals

Eleven (73%) of the 15 respondents to the question on whether officers had been contacted by the funded projects, suggested that they had. Two (13%) of respondents said they had not, and two (13%) were unsure. Of the 13 respondents who answered the question on whether services had been taken up, nine (69%) said they had and four (31%) said they had not.

Where boroughs had not referred to services, several reasons were given. Lack of awareness of the service or difficulties in contacting Tender were cited by two boroughs (Merton and Tower Hamlets). In one case (Ealing), the borough officer suggested that children’s services would be a more appropriate department with which to make contact. In the final instance (Lewisham), there was concern that there might be an expectation that they would have to pay for the service.

vi. Other comments

A number of comments are summarised below.

Contact and communication could be improved by:

- Contacting the boroughs in a co-ordinated/centralised manner so that they could have pre-planned support for local delivery (Harrow & Bromley).
- Facilitation of networking events (Redbridge)
- Contacting the lead for VAWG (Hounslow)

______________________________________________________________________

13 London Councils expectation is that any services that fall within the scope of the original funding application should be offered for free, as this is what the grants scheme is paying for. London Councils would like Tender to clarify the position on this issue. Positive comments: Generally, it was advised that the service is useful and relevant, particularly for a diverse boroughs as it provides access to specialist agencies and services. It also complements existing services.

Concerns: Concern was expressed that it is short term rather than an on-going programme in schools (Hammersmith) that won’t benefit all schools (Islington).14

c. Specification 2.2 – Advice Counselling, Outreach and Drop-in

i. Overview

The advice counselling, outreach and drop-in strand is delivered by four lead organisations. Three of these are not part of the Ascent partnership and provide specialist services. These are:

- Sign Health – service provision for deaf people
- GALOP – service provision for LGBT people
- Women in Prison – service provision for offenders.

The fourth part of this strand is delivered through the Ascent partnership, led by Solace and is supported by 13 partners (see Annex A).

Between 12 and 13 responses were provided to the questions related to this strand.

ii. Awareness

Amongst the 13 respondents to the question on awareness, 12 (92%), stated that they were aware that the service was being provided in the borough. One respondent (8%) was not aware. The one borough (Tower Hamlets) that said they were not aware of the service did suggest that they have been working with Solace, so officers assume that the comment relates to the other services under this strand.

This suggests that levels of awareness are generally high, but that more work is needed to increase visibility. London Councils recommends that the other services ensure that they have made contact with all boroughs and where necessary renew efforts in this regard.

iii. Usefulness

Amongst the 12 respondents to the question on usefulness, an average of 85% stated that they considered the services to be useful (40%) or very useful (45%) for their borough. Fifteen per cent of respondents thought the services somewhat useful and no respondents not at all useful. The breakdown per project is set out in Figure 8 (below)

14 Officers are asked to note that the partners are working within time and budgetary limitations. As a result, resources will have to be used in an appropriate manner, which may include targeting where need is greatest. Furthermore, there will be a consultation next year on the 2015/16-2017/18 tranche of funding. Where officers consider that continued resource is required they will have the opportunity to make this case to London Councils and their own elected members. The number of positive comments about the services on offer outweighed the less positive comments, which is encouraging for London Councils. Where respondents suggested that services were only somewhat useful, several issues emerged. With regard to Solace, Kingston, Lewisham, and Newham all indicated that there was some duplication of services. However, Kingston did suggest that they were currently working with Solace to address these concerns.

There were also a number of comments regarding limited awareness of Sign Health's service offer (Harrow, Merton, and Islington). London Councils recommends that funded organisations review specific comments and take appropriate steps to address the issues raised.

iv. Gaps

Ten of 11 respondents suggested that there were gaps in borough provision that could be filled by this service. The following gaps were suggested:

| Borough | Gap | |--------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------| | Bromley | Providing specialist counselling plus specialist advice for LGBT, BME and Deaf residents. | | Haringey | Some training and advice that targets the housing, emotional needs and best practice in supporting of young victims of DV, i.e. 16 and 17 year olds | | Merton | Post audit possibly | | Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames | Counselling services | Tower Hamlets

There is a lack of organisations, in my view and within my understanding in the consortium, who work with Bengali speakers. We have a large population of Bengali women who need support but who would not be able to access the services without interpretation.(^{15})

Waltham Forest

LGB&T, FGM support services, Eastern European support services

v. Contact and referrals

While there is some variation in the level of contact made by each of the commissions, generally levels of contact are high. Eighty per cent of the respondents to the question on whether officers had been contacted by the funded projects suggested that they had. Seventeen per cent of respondents said they had not, and 2% were unsure. As shown in Figure 9 (below), levels of contact are generally very high. However, more work is needed in this area by Sign Health.

Figure 9. Contact Made By Organisation

| Organisation | Yes | No | Not sure | |--------------------|-----|----|----------| | Solace | 92% | 8% | 0% | | SignHealth | 45% | 45%| 9% | | GALOP | 92% | 8% | 0% | | Women in Prison | 92% | 8% | 0% |

The responses provided to the question on take-up of services suggested that on average a high percentage (67%) of respondents had made use of the services. However, the figures varied Annex A depending on the service provided (see Figure 10 overleaf).

(^{15}) NB providers will have to consider the resource implications of this suggestion. Where boroughs had not referred to services, several reasons were given. Lack of awareness of the services provided by Sign Health was cited by five boroughs (Waltham Forest, Hounslow, Lewisham, Tower Hamlets and Bromley).

In other cases, officers suggested that they needed more detail of the services being offered and a more streamlined method of communication, particularly from the Ascent partnership (Newham, Bromley, Islington, Haringey, Harrow).

vi. Other comments

A number of comments are summarised below.

Positive comments: Generally, the services offered were seen as useful. There were particularly positive comments on some of the specialist provision where it had been linked in to local structures. Tower Hamlets felt that the information they had received from Solace about the Ascent partnership was excellent.

Concerns: A number of general concerns were expressed about planning, co-ordination and communication, particularly with regard to the Ascent partnership.

d. Specification 2.3 – Helpline and Co-ordinated Access to Refuge Provision

i. Overview

The helpline and co-ordinated access to refuge provision strand is led by Women’s Aid as part of the Ascent partnership and is supported by three partners (see Annex A). Between seven and 16 responses were provided to the questions related to this strand.

ii. Awareness

Amongst the 16 respondents to the question on awareness, 12 (75%), stated that they were aware that the service was being provided in the borough. Four respondents (25%) were not aware. This suggests that levels of awareness are generally high. However, more work is needed to raise awareness where boroughs are unaware of the service. iii. Usefulness

Amongst the 12 respondents to the question on usefulness, five (42%), stated that they considered the service to be very useful for their borough. Five respondents (42%) thought it useful, two respondents (17%) somewhat useful and no respondents not at all useful.

For the two respondents that commented on why they scored the service somewhat useful one (Kingston) suggested there was a lack of clarity between national and local provision and the other (Islington) suggested that it was difficult to get through. Despite these comments, there was generally a feeling that the service provided was useful particularly as funding for local services of this nature was not available.

iv. Gaps

There were no significant gaps identified for this service. However a number of boroughs did suggest that they would like to receive more regular updates about numbers of people from their boroughs using this service.

v. Contact and referrals

Thirteen (54%) of the 13 respondents to the question on whether officers had been contacted by the funded projects, suggested that they had. Three (23%) of respondents said they had not, and three (23%) were unsure. Of the seven respondents who answered the question on whether services had been taken up, four (57%) said they had and three (43%) said they had not.

Due to the nature of the service, London Councils officers do not consider that that there are any serious issues to note on contact and referrals to this service. Indeed a number of borough officers stated that they were already aware of the service. However, two mentioned that it would be helpful to promote email access. London Councils recommends that Women’s Aid and partners consider how best to make access via email more readily available where appropriate.

vi. Other comments

No further comments.

e. Specification 2.4 – Specialist Emergency Refuge Provision

i. Overview

The specialist emergency refuge provision strand is led by two providers, Eaves Housing for Women and Ashiana Network (as part of the Ascent partnership and is supported by two partners (see Annex A)). Between nine and 13 responses were provided to the questions on this strand.

ii. Awareness

Amongst the 13 respondents to the question on awareness, nine (69%), stated that they were aware that the service was being provided in the borough. One respondent (8%) was not aware and three respondents (23%) were not sure. This suggests that levels of awareness are reasonable. However, more work is needed to raise awareness where boroughs are unaware of the service.

iii. Usefulness

Amongst the 12 respondents to the question on usefulness, an average of 69% stated that they considered the services to be useful (14%) or very useful (55%) for their borough. Thirty-two per cent of respondents thought the services somewhat useful and no respondents not at all useful. The breakdown per project is set out in Figure 11 (overleaf).

As with section 3.5.2 there was a general sense that boroughs were not aware of whether their residents were accessing these services. And in a number of cases, borough officers were not aware that the services were open to their residents (Bromley, Islington, Merton). Whilst there are clearly sensitivities around sharing of detailed information on services of this type, it is clear that more needs to be done to highlight access routes. iv. Gaps

There were no significant gaps identified for this service. However a number of boroughs did suggest that specialist services were not always available locally, particularly for people with complex needs and/or no recourse to public funds, and additional resources were welcome as a result.

v. Contact and referrals

The picture presented above feeds through to the responses on contact and referrals. This is highlighted in Figure 12 and Figure 13 (below). London Councils note that given the specialist nature of the services provided, it might be reasonable to expect lower levels of take-up. Nevertheless, both Ashiana and Eaves are recommended to take steps to increase awareness of the services amongst borough officers. Although borough officers should also be aware that the number of places on offer are limited. vi. Other comments

No further comments.

f. Specification 2.5 – Support Services to the Sector

i. Overview

The support services to the sector strand is led by Women's Resource Centre as part of the Ascent partnership and is supported by five partners (see Annex A). Between 11 and 13 responses were provided to the questions related to this strand.

ii. Awareness

Amongst the 13 respondents to the question on awareness, 12 (92%), stated that they were aware that the service was being provided in the borough. One respondent (8%) was not aware. This suggests that levels of awareness are generally high. iii. Usefulness

Amongst the 12 respondents to the question on usefulness, seven (58%), stated that they considered the service to be very useful for their borough. Three respondents (25%) thought it useful, two respondents (17%) somewhat useful and no respondents not at all useful.

There were generally favourable comments on this service. The opportunity to keep up with fast moving policy developments was a factor cited by a number of respondents. Generally, people felt that the service offer had been communicated well. In one case (Merton) lack of awareness of what was on offer was cited. Newham also suggested that borough surgeries were not particularly helpful.

iv. Gaps

One borough (Waltham Forest) suggested good practice and sustainability training should be provided. Another (Haringey) would like to see seminars and briefings provided on a quadrant basis e.g. shared events with adjoining boroughs. This approach could help to address the concerns raised by Newham.

v. Contact and referrals

Twelve (92%) of the 13 respondents to the question on whether officers had been contacted by the funded project, suggested that they had. one (8%) of respondents said they had not. Of the 11 respondents who answered the question on whether services had been taken up, eight (73%) said they had and three (27%) said they had not.

Generally, feedback was positive. However, one borough (Tower Hamlets) suggested the extent to which borough officers could also access services could be made clearer.

vi. Other comments

No further comments.

g. Specification 2.6 – Harmful Practices

i. Overview

The harmful practices strand is led by two providers, DVIP (Al-Aman) for Women and Asian Women’s Resource Centre (as part of the Ascent partnership and is supported by seven partners (see Annex A)). Between seven and 13 responses were provided to the questions related the prevention strand.

ii. Awareness

Amongst the 13 respondents to the question on awareness, eight (67%), stated that they were aware that the service was being provided in the borough. Two respondents (17%) were not aware and two respondents (17%) were not sure. This suggests that levels of awareness are reasonably good. However, more work is needed to raise awareness where boroughs are unaware of the service.

iii. Usefulness

Amongst the 12 respondents to the question on usefulness, an average of 64% stated that they considered the services to be useful (14%) or very useful (50%) for their borough. Thirty-two per cent of respondents thought the services somewhat useful and 9% of respondents not at all useful. The breakdown per project is set out in Figure 14 (overleaf).

Given the specialist nature of the services on offer, the diverse nature of the London population and the uneven distribution of communities where levels of harmful practices are high, London Councils officers would expect to see divergent views on the extent to which services are useful. And as the comments provided by each borough do not reveal any general trends, funded projects are asked to consider the full comments provided to them and take appropriate steps to address these.

Figure 14. 2.6 Usefulness of Service

| Percentage | Very useful | Useful | Somewhat useful | Not at all useful | |------------|-------------|--------|-----------------|------------------| | Asian Women's Resource Centre (AWRC) | 55% | 18% | 27% | 0% | | DVIP (Al-Aman Service) | 45% | 9% | 36% | 9% |

iv. Gaps

There were no significant gaps identified for this service. However Waltham Forest did highlight the need for provision for women with no-recourse to public funds experiencing issues related to female genital mutilation.

v. Contact and referrals

The number of respondents reporting that contact has been made is lower than expected. Take up of services is also low for the service provided by DVIP (Al-Aman)(^\\text{16}). This is highlighted in Figure 15 and Figure 16 (overleaf). London Councils note that given the specialist nature of the services provided, it might be reasonable to expect lower levels of take-up. Nevertheless, both Asian Women’s Resource Centre and in particular DVIP are recommended to take steps to increase awareness of the services amongst borough officers (within resource availability).

(^{16}) Please note that DVIP (Al-Aman) only receive £20,633 per year in grant and are not contracted to work in every single borough. vi. Other comments

The respondent from Newham suggested that the services on offer were already being delivered in the borough by other organisations.

h. Feedback for London Councils

Respondents provided a range of feedback to London Councils. Some of this underlined the importance of clear communication about who is delivering what and the need for single points of contact for large partnerships at borough level. One suggested way of achieving this would be to facilitate consultation with boroughs prior to service start-up. London Councils will ensure that for future funding rounds consultation is done with each borough to clarify service needs and single points of contact. Nevertheless, several respondents felt that communication with VAWG co-ordinators had improved under this round of funding. 2. **Recommendations**

The table below sets out general and specific recommendations:

| Recommendation applicable to | Recommendation | |------------------------------|----------------| | General | Ascent partnership to consider setting out a single point of contact for each borough covering all of the strands. | | General | Funded organisations to review borough comments related to usefulness, contact and referral and take appropriate steps to address issues raised. | | 2.1 Prevention | Tender make contact with those boroughs that are not aware of the service. Consider doing this through a single point of contact for the Ascent partnership if practicable. | | 2.1 Prevention | Tender to clarify the scope of the project and which services are covered by London Councils’ grant and which require additional payment. | | 2.2 Advice, counselling, outreach and drop-in. | Sign Health to increase general awareness raising activities and Galop and Women in Prison to target boroughs that have indicated they are not aware of services. | | 2.3 Helpline and Co-ordinated Access to Refuge Provision | Women’s Aid and partners consider how best to make access via email more readily available where appropriate. | | 2.4 Specialist Emergency Refuge Provision | Ashiana and Eaves Housing for Women to redouble efforts at raising awareness of service and access routes. | | 2.5 Support Services to the Sector | Women’s Resource Centre to consider providing seminars and briefing sessions on a quadrant or sub-regional basis. | | 2.5 Support Services to the Sector | Women’s Resource Centre to clarify what provision is open to borough officers. | | 2.6 Harmful Practices | Both Asian Women’s Resource Centre and in particular DVIP are recommended to take steps to increase awareness of the services amongst borough officers. | | London Councils | London Councils will ensure that for future funding rounds consultation is done with each borough to clarify service needs and single points of contact. | | Borough officers | To familiarise themselves with the Ascent partnership table presented at Annex A and note that the following organisations are not Ascent partners: | | | Specification 2.2 – Advice Counselling, Outreach and Drop-in | | | o Sign Health | | | o GALOP | | | o Women in Prison | | | Specification 2.4 – Specialist Emergency Refuge Provision | | | o Eaves Housing for Women | Borough officers

To give consideration to the scale of some of the services, particularly refuge provision and the realism of access for women from every borough.

## Appendix 10 – Annex A.

The Ascent Partnership: Organisations and Strands under which They Work

| Organisation/Strand | 2.1 | 2.2 | 2.3 | 2.4 | 2.5 | 2.6 | |--------------------------------------------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----| | Ashiana Network | | | | | | LEAD| | Asian Women’s Resource Centre | | | | | | LEAD| | AVA | | | | | | | | CIAC (Chinese Information and Advice Centre)| | | | | | | | EACH Counselling | | | | | | | | FORWARD | | | | | | | | IKWRO | | | | | | | | IMECE | | | | | | | | IMKAAN | | | | | | | | Jewish Women’s Aid | | | | | | | | LAWRS | | | | | | | | Nia | | | | | | | | Refuge | | | | | | | | RASAC | | | | | | | | Respect | | | | | | | | Rights of Women | | | | | | | | Solace Women’s Aid | | | | | | | | Southall Black Sisters | | | | | | | | Tender | | | | | | | | Women and Girls Network | | | | | | | | Women’s Aid | | | | | | | | Women’s Resource Centre | | | | | | |

**Number of organisations per strand**

| Strand | 2.1 | 2.2 | 2.3 | 2.4 | 2.5 | 2.6 | |--------|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----| | | 11 | 14 | 4 | 3 | 6 | 8 |